Point of Law: Where any convict undergoing life imprisonment has already been released on bail by orders of Court, order granting interim bail shall continue to remain in operation until disposal of application for premature release.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1, 3 and 4 to place the case of the petitioner before the Life Convicts Premature Release Committee (‘the Committee’ for short) the 2nd respondent.

2. Heard Sri. K.B. Monesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. B.V. Krishna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime which ends up in his conviction in S.C. No. 52/2008. On the registration of a crime for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 302 and 376 of the IPC, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. By then, the petitioner was already in custody from 23.11.2007 itself, and continued to be in custody till the learned Sessions Judge convicted him for the aforesaid offences on 12.10.2010.

4. The petitioner files a criminal appeal before this Court in Crl. Appeal No. 184/2020, wherein, this Court acquitted the petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and affirmed the conviction for other offences under Sections 201 and 302 of the IPC. The petitioner continues to be in prison and is now in prison for the last 16 years. The jail authorities have also issued certificates favouring the petitioner observing that his conduct has been exemplary throughout. On all the aforesaid basis, the petitioner seeks his premature release/remission on the ground that he has been a life convict for over 16 years and 10 months along with the entitlement of remission before the jail authorities. What drives the petitioner to this Court is that, the case of the petitioner is not placed before the Committee - the second respondent by the fourth respondent.

5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner Sri. K.B. Monesh Kumar would contend that the Committee is required to meet once in two months, six times in a year and the Committee has not met for the last six months and therefore, the application of the petitioner has not been able to be placed before the Committee to consider his premature release.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate would on instructions submit that the Committee has slated to meet in the month of March for consideration of the cases of the petitioner and the like on their merit. He would submit that the endeavour of the Government would definitely be to meet frequently.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Therefore, they require no iteration. The issue in the lis lies in a narrow compass with the relief sought being only to place the case of the petitioner before the second respondent - Committee without any loss of time with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner for premature release in terms of law. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been knocking at the doors of the Jail Authorities since 22.07.2022. The representation of the petitioner has not been placed before the Committee, only on the ground that the Committee has not met. It is now close to 8 months that the Committee has not met. In these circumstances, it becomes germane to notice the orders passed by the Apex Court from time to time concerning the release of the life convicts. The Apex Court considering the issue State-Wise, in the case of Sonadhar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, SLA (Crl.) No. 529/2021, dated 09.02.2022 as in the State of Uttar Pradesh, has held as follows:

“STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (U.P.)

Uttar Pradesh was taken up as one of the states for carrying out a pilot project. The data shows that for the year 2021, 1372 applications were received for premature release of the convicts and 633 applications were allowed by the State Government, while 739 applications were rejected. 588 life convicts have been prematur