The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision-making process of the Review Committee in refusing premature release to the petitioner was justified and in accordance with the relevant legal provisions and guidelines.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The petitioner was convicted to life imprisonment for offences under Sections 366/384/302/201 of the Indian Penal Code by the Judgment and Order dated December 14, 1991 of the Sessions Judge, Third Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against such judgment and was released from the Alipore Central Correctional Home on February 28, 1998, pursuant to an order passed by this court. On September 10, 2006, the petitioner was again sent to the Presidency Correctional Home and re-committed on November 6, 2006. Thereafter, the petitioner was committed to the Dum Dum Central Correctional Home on May 29, 2008. The appeal of the petitioner was ultimately dismissed and the conviction affirmed.

2. After incarceration of over 14 years, the petitioner filed a criminal revision, bearing C.R.R. No. 1545 of 2012, wherein the then Superintendent of the Dum Dum Central Correctional Home affirmed an affidavit and intimated the court that a proposal had been sent to the Review Committee on June 28, 2012, through the IG Correctional Services for premature release of the petitioner, who had undergone actual imprisonment for more than 14 years.

3. The revisional application was disposed of on August 16, 2012, upon a co-ordinate Bench observing that such disposal was in terms of the statement made by counsel for the State that the petitioner's case shall be taken up by the Review Committee on its next meeting and the decision would be conveyed to the petitioner. Liberty was given to the petitioner to challenge the order of the Review Committee.

4. No decision was subsequently communicated to the petitioner, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition, bearing W.P. No. 4036 (W) of 2013. The said writ petition was disposed of by another co-ordinate Bench on February 27, 2013 with the observation that the petitioner's prayer for premature release shall be placed before the Review Committee in its next meeting. The Review Committee was to proceed to consider the petitioner's application in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order. In the event the petitioner's prayer was rejected, a reasoned order was to be passed. If the prayer was accepted, necessary follow-up steps were to be taken without delay, also in accordance with law.

5. Subsequently, on April 30, 2014, one Kamal Sarkar, the brother of the petitioner, gave a representation to the Chairman of the Review Committee, State of West Bengal to the effect that the petitioner had already served more than 17 years in correctional homes as a life convict. A request was made therein to take a decision regarding release of the petitioner on humanitarian ground. No such decision, however, was communicated to the petitioner or his brother, prompting the petitioner to file the present writ petition, seeking a direction on the respondents to take adequate steps for arriving at a decision regarding the premature release of the petitioner.

6. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the State hands up the minutes of the proceedings of the 64th meeting of the State Sentence Review Board, West Bengal for consideration of premature release of life convicts. Such meeting was held on February 3, 2020. It transpires from such minutes that the request of premature release made by the petitioner was not recommended by the Committee on the ground that the petitioner was guilty of a group act, had potential to organize gang and that reverting to crime could not be ruled out, based on the objection given by the police authorities.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that one Bijon Barua, who was also a prime accused in the same offence and was also convicted to life imprisonment, has already been released prematurely. It is thus argued that the petitioner suffered from a patent discrimination, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the consid