Court mandates pilot implementation of software module automating premature release processes for eligible life convicts, enforcing timelines, alerts, and accountability to eliminate administrative delays and ensure automatic consideration per state policies.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant Criminal Appeal was brought to challenge the order [Order dated 13.09.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.370 of 1983] of the Allahabad High Court (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) confirming the conviction for the charge under Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellant.

3. On 13.08.2024, when the appeal came up for hearing, it was informed that the appellant was released on bail in furtherance to the order dated 15.3.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura. The order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was in pursuance of the order dated 10.1.2024 of the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 2016, titled Ganesh vs. State of U.P. The High Court in the said order had directed to release the convicts on bail in case their applications for premature release were kept pending for more than six months. It is not out of place to mention that the direction as issued in the Ganesh (Supra) was not related to the case of the appellant and the sentence served by the appellant till the date of his release was only two years and five months. After taking cognizance of these facts, explanation was sought vide orders dated 13.08.2024 and 03.09.2024 passed in the proceedings of this case that once the criminal appeal referred above is of different person in a different case, how the Chief Judicial Magistrate could have released the accused without any order of the Court in the appellant’s case.

4. It was informed in the State’s affidavit dated 06.09.2024 that the full Bench of the High Court’s Lucknow bench had taken cognizance of the correctness of the directions issued in Ganesh (Supra), and therefore, in the case of Ambrish Kumar Verma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Misc. Writ Petion No. 1915 of 2024), after considering the same, it was held that the power of remission is only retained by the appropriate authority. The Division Bench could not have issued any general direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrates for releasing the convicts on bail without any orders passed in the pending appeals of such convicts before the High Court or by the Competent Courts. In the interregnum, however, prior to the judgment of the Full Bench in Ambrish Kumar (Supra), many convicts were released on bail in furtherance to the directions in Ganesh (Supra) by the respective Chief Judicial Magistrates. Since direction to take back the accused into custody was not issued by the Full Bench in Ambrish Kumar (Supra) and the order of Ganesh (Supra) though not found as good law, however, the position was required to be reversed by the High Court itself.

5. In the above conspectus, and with an intent to give effect to the Full Bench judgment in Ambrish Kumar (Supra), this Court, vide a detailed order dated 09.09.2024 directed the appellant to surrender, and sought the information from the State of Uttar Pradesh as under:

“11. Looking to the gravity of the matter, we must also seek a detailed affidavit from the Principal Secretary (Home) and Principal Secretary (Prisons) of the State of Uttar Pradesh on the following:

a. How the Jail Authorities could recommend the case of the Petitioner for remission without compliance of the State’s remission policy which mandates 14 years minimum imprisonment for a li