Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1464

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant, JJ.
Nisar – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 162 of 2019 with W.P.(Crl.) No. 536 of 2021
Decided On : 09-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Yunus Malik, Advocate, Mr. Anish Maheshwari, Advocate, Mr. Aman Malik, Advocate, Ms. Saroj Bala, Advocate, Ms. Rajeeta Raj, Advocate, Mr. Samir Malik, Advocate, Mr. Z.U. Khan, Advocate, Mr. Sulaiman Mohd Khan, Advocate, Ms. Taiba Khan, Advocate, Ms. Nida Khan, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Choudhury, Advocate, Mr. Imran Ali Khan, Advocate, Mr. Divyank Tyagi, Advocate, Mr. Akshay Yadav, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AAG, Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Advocate, Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate, Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Advocate, Mr. Mohammed Akhil, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Ratanakar Das, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, Advocate, Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Advocate, Mr. Narender Rana, Advocate, Mr. Neelambar Jha, Advocate, Mr. Smarhar Singh, Advocate, Mr. Ajit Singh Pundir, Advocate, For the Respondent.

The court emphasized the importance of considering the eligibility for premature release of prisoners convicted and undergoing life imprisonment in accordance with the state's policy.

Headnote:
Premature Release - Convicted Prisoners - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 307, 148, 149, 201, 411, 120B - Dev Nath Singh v State of U P - Rajkumar v The State of Uttar Pradesh
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who were convicted for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, sought premature release. The State of Uttar Pradesh had clarified its policy regarding premature release of prisoners convicted and undergoing life imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:

The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' cases for premature release within three months in accordance with the policy dated 1 August 2018.
Issues: Premature release of convicted prisoners, clarification of Uttar Pradesh's policy on premature release
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the clarification provided by the State of Uttar Pradesh regarding the eligibility for premature release of prisoners convicted and undergoing life imprisonment.
Final Decision: The petitions were disposed of, and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioners' cases for premature release within three months.

ORDER

Writ Petition (Crl) No. 162/2019 (Nisar v State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors). WP (Crl.) No 536 of 2021 (Vivek Sharma v State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr) and WP(Crl) No 428 of 2021 (Zakir v State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr)

1. The petitioner (Nisar) in Writ Petition (Crl) No 162 of 2019 has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 148 and 332 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code I860[1] in Sessions Trial No 245 of 1989. The order of conviction was confirmed by the High Court by a judgment dated 20 May 1994. However, the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. The petitioner has undergone imprisonment for a term of over 31 years with remission.

[1] "IPC"

2. The petitioner (Vivek Sharma) in Writ Petition (Crl) No 536 of 2021 has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 149, 201, 411 and 120B of IPC in Sessions Trial No 292 of 2006. The order of conviction was confirmed by the High Court. The petitioner has undergone imprisonment for a term of over 16 years without remission and 21 years and 4 months with remission.

3. The petitioner (Zakir) in Writ Petition (Crl) No 428 of 2021 has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 148 and 149 of IPC in Sessions Trial No 623 of 2001. The order of conviction was confirmed by the High Court. The petitioner has undergone imprisonment for a term of over 20 years and 1 month without remission and 25 years and 3 months without remission.

4. In the present batch of petitions, the petitioners seek pre-mature release.

5. In Dev Nath Singh v State of U P[2], a two-Judge Bench of this Court passed the following order on 21 February 2022:

"Respondent-State of Uttar Pradesh has filed counter affidavit inter alia stating as under:

"23. The Government of Uttar Pradesh on 16.12.2021 has decided that the prisoners convicted and undergoing sentence for life imprisonment who were earlier eligible for consideration under the unamended premature release jail policy dated 01.08.2018,will still be considered for eligibility for premature release as per their eligibility before introduction of policy dated 28.07.2021."

In view of the above, we direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner of pre mature release accordingly, within three months.

Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of."

[2] Writ Petition (Crl.) No 528 of 2021

6. A similar order was passed by this Court on 11 March 2022 in Rajkumar v The State of Uttar Pradesh[3] in the following terms:

"1. An affidavit has been filed by the Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Ghaziabad, inter alia, stating that:

"The Government of Uttar Pradesh on 16.12.2021 has decided that the prisoners convicted and undergoing sentence for life imprisonment who were earlier eligible for consideration under the unamended premature release jail policy dated 01.8.2018, will still be considered for eligibility for premature release as per their eligibility before introduction of policy dated 28.07.2021.

2. Mr Nagendra Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, states that the above clarification would resolve the grievance of the petitioners and their representations may now be directed to be considered by the competent authority expeditiously.

3. Ms Preetika Dwivedi, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, states that if the petitioners submit fresh representations, the representations shall be considered within a period of three months.

4. We accordingly permit the petitioners to submit representations for their release. The representations shall be considered and disposed of in terms of the statement which has been made in the counter affidavit expeditiously and orders communicated in any event within a period of three months of the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the competent authority.

5. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of."

[3] Writ Petition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document