IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider post-conviction conduct, societal reintegration, and the reformative purpose of imprisonment in premature release decisions, while balancing societal interest with the rights of the convict.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The petitioners were convicted and sentenced, respectively on June 28 and June 29, 2010, for the commission of gang-rape under Section 376(g) of the Indian Penal Code. Since prior to that, the petitioners have been in incarceration.

2. After spending about two decades in jail, the petitioners applied for premature release. On September 2, 2022, a meeting was held by the State Sentence Review Board (SSRB), West Bengal, where the petitioners were not recommended for premature release. This Court, vide order dated January 10, 2023 passed in WPA No. 28437 of 2022, set aside the recommendation of the SSRB, which was followed by a special meeting of the SSRB for reconsideration of the issue of premature release and again rejected the petitioners? plea for premature release on February 17, 2023.

3. Another writ petition bearing WPA No. 20731 of 2023 preferred against the said rejection was disposed of on October 11, 2023 directing a further reconsideration.

4. Thereafter, on December 6, 2023, the SSRB again rejected the petitioners? request for premature release, prompting the petitioners to file the present writ petition.

5. Insofar as the petitioner no.1, Kanchi alias Sanjit Makhal is concerned, his case was considered and rejected by giving certain reasons by the SSRB on December 6, 2023.

6. Kabu Malik’s case was, however, not considered in the said meeting. It was merely recorded that the request of Kabu Malik (petitioner no. 2 herein) was considered and rejected in the 69th meeting of the SSRB held on September 2, 2022. The minutes of the proceedings of the meeting dated September 2, 2022, however, indicate that 99 life convicts were recommended for premature release. 14 cases, including that of Kabu Malik, it was decided, would be reviewed again in the next meeting after obtaining reports with regard to advisability of release from the jurisdictional police authorities where the crimes occurred and the place where the convicts concerned desired to reside after their release. Thus, insofar as petitioner no. 2, Kabu Malik is concerned, no decision was taken at all on September 2, 2022but his case was merely postponed, on the ground that the same would be reviewed upon getting reports from the jurisdictional police authorities.

7. However, in the meeting dated December 6, 2023, insofar as Kabu Malik is concerned, it was merely stated that the prayer of premature release in respect of the said convict was considered and rejected in the 69th meeting held on September 2, 2022, which finding was patently perverse. As such, contrary to the finding of the SSRB dated September 2, 2022 that Kabu Malik’s case would be reviewed upon obtaining reports from the jurisdictional police authorities, there was no such review at all. Thus, Kabu Malik’s request for premature release was not considered at all despite the direction of this Court.

8. Hence, insofar as the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, there was virtually no consideration of his prayer for premature release at all. Such inaction on the part of the SSRB with regard to the petitioner no. 2 is deplorable, to say the least.

9. Insofar as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, his case was considered and rejected primarily by considering the nature of the crime and the impact of the case on the victim and her family. The SSRB proceeded on the premise that one of the victims had no other option but to commit suicide within a few days of the incident. The “criminal mindset” and “pre-meditated commission of offence” at the relevant juncture formed the premise of the SSRB recording its apprehension that the petitioner no. 1 has mental and physical potentiality to commit similar nature of organized crime. On such ground and such ground alone, the Board unanimously refused to recommend the premature release of petitioner no. 1.

10. Let us now consider the relevant yardsticks which are to be taken into consideration in cases of premature release.

11. The parameters of premat