Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1490
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA AND AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Chetan And Others - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi) - Respondent
Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(s). 397 of 2023
Decided on : 03-01-2025
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections relevant to premature release applications.
(B) Legal principle established is that the court may dispose of petitions granting liberty to petitioners to challenge orders of rejection of premature release.
(C) Petitioners no.1 and 3's applications for premature release were rejected.
(D) Main issues addressed include the legitimacy of rejection of premature release and the required compliance to previous orders. (E) The court reasoned that petitioner no.13's claim of being misled was not credible considering his actions post the interim order. (F) The final decision of the court was to dismiss the petition for petitioner no.13 and allow time extensions for compliance for certain others. (G) Parties involved are petitioners and the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the order regarding premature release. (Para 1) |
| 2. conclusion on pending applications. (Para 2 , 3) |
ORDER :
W.P. (Crl.) No(s).397/2023
1. List on 31st January, 2025.
W.P. (Crl.) No. 426/2023
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Petitioner no.2 has already withdrawn the petition. As far as petitioner nos.1 and 3 are concerned, their applications for premature release have been rejected as can be seen from the counter affidavit. We, therefore, dispose of this Petition with liberty to the petitioner nos.1 and 3 to challenge the said order in accordance with law. We extend the time granted to the petitioner nos.1 and 3 to surrender by a period of two weeks from today.
3. Pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1484-1496/2024
1. We have perused the affidavit filed by the petitioner no.13, who has stated on oath in paragraph 11 that he was mislead and not informed the exact challenge made in the present Petition and he was also not informed that the Sentence Review Board has already taken a decision. According to us, the statement is not innocuous. If according to petitioner no.13, he had not instructed the Advocate-on-Record to file the present Petitions, he would not have taken the benefit of the interim order passed on 2nd February, 2024 in the present petitions by which exemption from surrendering was granted to the respective petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner no.13 accepts that the said petitioner surrendered as late as on 9th October, 2024. Therefore, we dismiss the petition as far as petitioner no.13 is concerned.
2. List the Petitions on 31st January, 2025.
3. As far as IA No.280854/2024 is concerned, we permit the petitioner no.8 to file additional documents.
IA NO.63/2025 (FOR EXTENSION OF TIME) IN SLP (CRL.) NOS. 14841496/2024
4. Time to comply with order dated 18th November, 2024 is extended by a period of three weeks from today. No further time shall be granted. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
SLP (Crl.) No. 1985-1987/2024
IA No.34/2025 (FOR EXTENSION OF TIME) IN SLP (Crl.) No. 19851987/2024
1. Petitioner nos.4, 15, 19 and 21 have been already granted the benefit of premature release and they have been released. For rest of the petitioners, we extend the time granted to comply with the order dated 18th November, 2024 by a period of three weeks from today. No further time shall be granted. The application is disposed of accordingly.
2. List the Petitions on 31st January, 2024.
SLP (Crl.) No. 1617/2024
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. It is pointed out across the Bar that the petitioner has already surrendered on 8th October, 2024.
3. The prayer of the petitioner for grant of premature release has been rejected as can be seen from the counter affidavit. Accordingly, we dispose of the Petition with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said order in accordance with law.
4. Pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
W.P. (Crl.) No. 237/2024
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The applications for premature release made by the petitioners have been rejected. We, therefore, dispose of the Petition with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the said order in accordance with law. We grant time of two weeks to the petitioners to surrender.
3. Pending application stands disposed of accordingly.
