(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 432 and 433-A – Constitution of India – Articles 72 and 161 – Premature release from prison – Whilst it is undoubtedly true that society has a right to lead a peaceful and fearless life, without free-roaming criminals creating havoc in lives of ordinary peace-loving citizens – But equally strong is foundation of reformative theory which propounds that a civilised society cannot be achieved only through punitive attitudes and vindictiveness and that instead public harmony, brotherhood and mutual acceptability ought to be fostered – First-time offenders ought to be liberally accorded a chance to repent their past and look forward to a bright future – Length of sentence or gravity of original crime can’t be sole basis for refusing premature release – Any assessment regarding predilection to commit crime upon release must be based on antecedents as well as conduct of prisoner while in jail and not merely on his age or apprehensions of victims and witnesses. (Paras 13 and 18)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 364-A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 432 and 433-A – U.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 – Section 2 – Kidnapping for ransom – Life sentence – Petition for premature release from prison – No convict can claim remission as a matter of right – However, in present case, circumstances are different – What had been sought and directed by this Court through repeated orders was not premature release itself, but due application of mind and a reasoned decision by executive authorities in terms of existing provisions regarding premature release – Once a law has been made by appropriate legislature, then it is not open for executive authorities to surreptitiously subvert its mandate – Where authorities are found to have failed to discharge their statutory obligations despite judicial directions, it would then not be inappropriate for a Constitutional Court while exercising its powers of judicial review to assume such task onto itself and direct compliance through a writ of mandamus – Three factor evaluation of (i) antecedents (ii) conduct during incarceration and (iii) likelihood to abstain from crime, under Section 2 of UP Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938, have been given a complete go by – These refusals are not based on facts or evidence, and are vague, cursory, and merely unsubstantiated opinions of state authorities – Conduct of both petitioners has been more than satisfactory – They have no material criminal antecedents, and have served almost 16 years in jail (22 years including remission) – Although being about 54 and 43 years old, they still have substantial years of life remaining, but that doesn’t prove that they retain a propensity for committing offences – State’s repeated and circuitous reliance on age does nothing but defeat the purpose of remission and probation, despite petitioners having met all statutory requirements for premature release – Petitioners’ action of kidnapping was nothing but a fanciful attempt to procure easy money, for which they have learnt a painful life lesson – Given their age, their case ought to be viewed through a prism of positivity – They retain ability to reintegrate with society and can spend many years leading a peaceful, disciplined, and normal human life – Such a hopeful expectation is further concretised by their conduct in jail – Balance between individual and societal welfare can be struck by granting petitioners conditional premature release, subject to their continuing good conduct – This would both ensure that liberty of petitioners is not curtailed, nor that there is any increased threat to society – This order is not irreversible and can always be recalled in event of any future misconduct or breach by petitioners – Petitioners to be released on probation in terms of Section 2 of UP Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938. (Paras 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22)

Facts of the case:

Instant petitions have been filed by seeking special leave to appeal against a common order dated 28.04.2017 of the Allahabad High Court through which appeal against conviction under Section 364A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and consequential sentence of life imprisonment, was turned down.

Findings of Court:

Petitioners’ action of kidnapping was nothing but a fanciful attempt to procure easy money, for which they have learnt a painful life lesson. Given their age, their case ought to be viewed through a prism of positivity. They retain the ability to reintegrate with society and can spend many years leading a peaceful, disciplined, and normal human life. Such a hopeful expectation is further concretised by their conduct in jail.

Result : Special Leave Petitions disposed of with direction.