Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
Balu S/o. Manikyan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner, a life convict, who has been serving more than 22 years at Central Prison, Trichy, challenges Ext.P4 order passed by respondent No.1, rejecting his claim for premature release.
2. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to life for the offence under Section 302 of IPC by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc), Fast Track Court-I, Thrissur in SC No.441/2002 for having murdered a lady named Suvarna by drowning her in a pond and robbed her gold chain. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by this Court in Crl. Appeal No.418/2021 on 26/8/2021. He has completed 22 years and 5 months of actual term of imprisonment as of 13/12/2023.
3. The police authorities and the probation officer have recommended the premature release of the petitioner. The Jail Advisory Committee of the Viyyur Central Prison and Correctional Home had on 10/7/2023 also recommended the premature release of the petitioner. The Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services forwarded the said recommendation to the 1st respondent for further action. However, the State Level Advisory Committee held on 14/8/2024 rejected the recommendation. Thereafter the Government had also consi
The court emphasized that the decision for premature release must consider individual circumstances and cannot be arbitrarily denied based on the nature of the crime.
The court ruled that blanket exclusions from premature release based on the nature of the crime are arbitrary and violate principles of reformation, directing the Government to reconsider individual ....
(1) Remission policy prevailing on the date of conviction, is to be applied in a given case, and if a more liberal policy exists on the day of consideration, then latter would apply.(2) Blanket exclu....
Point of law : A blanket stance that all persons who have murdered a woman or a child shall not be prematurely released de hors any other circumstances is not conducive to a welfare State.
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.
The government must provide proper reasoning for rejecting applications for premature release, ensuring uniformity and adherence to established policies.
The exercise of executive power of clemency is a duty vested in the Authority for the welfare of the people, and the case of premature release of a life convict is governed by the policy/guidelines o....
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....
The court emphasized that the Government must provide consistent and reasoned decisions regarding premature release applications, ensuring compliance with established policies and avoiding arbitrary ....
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
