Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. JAYACHANDRAN, R. POORNIMA
Paul Nadar – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Home Affairs, State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
ORDER :
R. POORNIMA, J.
This petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2024, filed this petition praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order in G.O.(D) No.806, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 27.06.2024 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to release the petitioner namely, Paul Nadar (Male 81/2024) S/o.Ayyankannu Nadar, Convict Prisoner No.418, confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai/3rd respondent, in the light of the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.488, Home (Prison IV) Department, dated 15.11.2021 and G.O.(Ms) No.430, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 11.08.2023.
2. The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 449 and 302 IPC in S.C No.93 of 1992 and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 449 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC in the judgment dated 22.02.1994, passed by the District and Sessions Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. Aggrieved by the judgment, he had filed a Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.207 of 1994, before the High Court of
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 the nature of the crime must be weighed against the convict's conduct and rehabilitation potential when considering premature release.
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 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.
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
