Back
SUNDER MOHAN, M. S. RAMESH
Manikandan – Appellant
Versus
State Represented by its the Secretary to the Government, Home Department – Respondent
ORDER :
M.S. Ramesh, J.
[PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order G.O.(D) No.1165, dated 06.10.2023 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently release the detenue, Poovarasi, D/o. Sambanthan, aged about 38 years, life convict prisoner, bearing Convict No.355, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal-I, Puzhal, Chennai, prematurely, as per G.O.(Ms.)No.488, dated 15.11.2021.]
The petitioner is the husband of Poovarasi, who is a life convict prisoner No.355, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal – I, Chennai. Through a judgment dated 15.02.2011 passed in Sessions Case No.491/2010 on the file of the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, she was convicted and sentenced as follows:-
| U/s 364 IPC | R.I. For 7 years and fine of Rs.50,000/- in default Simple Imprisonment for 6 months |
| U/s 302 r/w 201 IPC | Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default Simple Imprisonment for 6 months |
|
| A sum of Rs.90,000/- out of the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was ordered to be given to the mother of the victi |
Premature release for life convicts can be granted based on age and time served but must consider Probation Officer's recommendations and eligibility criteria.
Premature release of life convicts requires completion of 20 years of imprisonment and consideration of law and order implications, as per relevant government guidelines.
The court established that reliance on stale offences for denying premature release violates the principle against double jeopardy and the right to personal liberty under Article 21.
The court established that a prisoner cannot be denied benefits based on past punishments for offenses already served, as it violates the principle of double jeopardy.
The court established that factual inaccuracies in the rejection of premature release applications undermine the decision, especially when supported by good conduct evidence.
A life convict who has served a sentence for lesser offences is eligible for premature release despite concurrent convictions under ineligible sections, as per Supreme Court precedent.
The court emphasized that the Government must provide consistent and reasoned decisions for premature release applications, ensuring compliance with established policies and avoiding arbitrary reject....
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
