Back
J. K. MAHESHWARI, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
Surendra @ Sunda – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
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
Court mandates pilot implementation of software module automating premature release processes for eligible life convicts, enforcing timelines, alerts, and accountability to eliminate administrative d....
The Committee for premature release must meet regularly to timely consider applications; failure to do so infringes the rights of convicts entitled to such reviews.
Authorities must provide clear reasoning in decisions affecting personal liberty to prevent arbitrary action, aligning with established policies for premature release.
The court mandated the reconsideration of a convict's premature release proposal, emphasizing rehabilitation, age, and new evidence over the initial decision to reject it based on the severity of the....
(1) Commutation of life sentence—Concurrence of Central Government for commuting or remitting sentence is mandatory.(2) A statute does not become operative from date on which it is interpreted. It co....
The court directed that prisoners eligible under state policy for premature release must be evaluated fairly, without undue reliance on singular opinions, safeguarding against arbitrary treatment.
The court emphasized that the executive's discretion in granting premature release must be lawful and fair, directing reconsideration of cases for inmates not falling under prohibited categories.
The court established that adherence to the Premature Release Policy is mandatory, and past offenses cannot unjustly impede eligibility for release if the requisite sentence has been served.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
