IMPORTANT POINT
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.

ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order No. 1070/JD/SJ/PMR/2023-2024 dated 19.01.2024 passed by the 4th respondent, quash the same and direct the respondents to release the life convict prisoner Ravi @ Pokkai Ravi S/o Elumalai, (M/43) (Prisoner No. 1070) lodged at 5th respondent prison, who is undergoing life imprisonment for the past 21 years.

1. Heard Mr.V.Elangovan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.S.Mohandas, learned Public Prosecutor, for the respondents.

2. The petitioner herein, namely Ravi @ Pokkai Ravi, was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), through a judgment dated 30.04.2003 passed in S.C. No. 15/2003 on the file of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The appeal filed against the said judgment before this Court in Crl. Appeal No. 1124 of 2003 was dismissed on 05.07.2006. Since then, the life convict prisoner has been in custody for the past more than 20 years at the Kalapet Central Prison, Puducherry.

3. As per the Puducherry Prison Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the life convict prisoners, who have completed 14 years of imprisonment, would be eligible for consideration of premature release. In this connection, when the life convict prisoner had made an application seeking for premature release, his request was rejected by invoking Rule 870 of the Rules, through the impugned order dated 19.01.2024, predominantly on the ground that during his period of imprisonment, he was granted 6 days parole leave from 21.03.2012 to 26.03.2012. However, he had failed to surrender on expiry of the leave and was re-arrested on 15.02.2013, after a lapse of 326 days. It is also stated that there are 4 other cases pending trail and that there is a strong enmity from his rival group, who may settle their scores if he is released from jail, thereby affecting public peace and tranquility. Challenging the said order, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prisoner had completed 14 years of imprisonment and therefore, he is eligible for premature release. The learned counsel further submitted that during the prisoner's period of imprisonment, he had actively involved himself in various reformation activities and has substantiated to have reformed in his life. He also submitted that the prisoner's family members are suffering without consistent income and therefore, there was no justification on the part of the respondents in rejecting his request.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the life convict prisoner had earlier committed a jail offence by failing to surrender on expiry of his parole leave for almost 326 days and therefore, he would be ineligible for consideration of premature release. He also submitted that there is a danger to the prisoner's life from his rival group, if he is prematurely released.

6. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.

7. The main ground on which the petitioner's case for premature release has been rejected by the Sentence Review Board, as well as by the 4th respondent herein, is that when he was granted parole leave for 6 days, he had absconded for 326 days without surrendering and therefore, his case does not deserve consideration.

8. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that after the petitioner had failed to surrender on expiry of his parole leave, he was arrested by the Puducherry Police and re-admitted in the Central Prison on 15.02.2013. In this connection, a case in Crime No. 86/2012 under Section 224 of IPC was registered in Mudaliarpet Police Station, Puducherry and he was awarded a sentence of one year simple imprisonment, after holding him guilty of having co