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 offense.

JUDGMENT :

Beseeching premature release after having served twenty years of sentence in terms of Judgment dated 15.12.2005 of the learned Ad hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Malkangiri in Criminal Trial No.5 of 2005, as confirmed by Judgment dated 25.04.2015 of this Court in JCRLA No.37 of 2006, the petitioner-convict has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer(s):

“The petitioner therefore prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ/writs shall not be issued thereby the opposite parties No.1 to 4;

i) to quash the order dated 02.06.2023 under Annexure-1 in respect of the petitioner;

ii) to direct the opposite parties to release the petitioner from jail custody as premature release case being similarly standing with those who have been release prematurely vide order dated 11.04.2025.

AND If the opposite parties fail to show cause or insufficiently show cause, the Rule may please be made absolute;

AND Pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

AND For this act of your kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

Facts:

2. The petitioner has been lodged in the Circle Jail, Koraput for undergoing imprisonment for life by virtue of Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2005 being convicted and sentenced by the learned Ad hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Malkangiri in Criminal Trial No.5 of 2005 (arising out of Mudulipada Police Station Case No.2, dated 18.01.2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.25 of 2005 in the files of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malkangiri), having stood trial for commission of offence under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, “the IPC”).

2.1. As is stated by the petitioner, having stood trial in C.T. No.51 of 2005 in the aforesaid referred case, after being committed for sessions trial in connection with charge of offence under Section 302 of the IPC on 15.12.2005, upon conclusion of the trial, he was convicted and punished to undergo sentence of imprisonment for life. An appeal, registered as Jail Criminal Appeal (JCRLA) No.37 of 2006, before this Court got dismissed vide Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2015, as a result of which the Judgment and Order of the learned trial Court is confirmed.

2.2. Having served the sentence for twenty years, the petitioner was released on furlough in the year 2021 and surrendered himself as directed by this Court.

2.3. The proposal for premature release of the petitioner has been rejected by the State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) on 02.06.2023. Questioning the propriety and sanctity of such decision of rejecting the proposal for premature release by the SSRB, this instant petition is filed craving indulgence of this Court.

Hearing:

3. Heard Sri Satya Narayan Mishra-4, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Debasish Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite parties.

Submissions:

4. Sri Satya Narayan Mishra, learned Advocate submitted the decision taken in the Meeting held on 02.06.2023 by the SSRB as communicated vide Letter No.J/PR- 46/2022— 12091, dated 19.07.2023 that “the convict committed double murder and therefore as per Para- 6(1)(a) of Odisha Gazette Notification No.1174, dated 19.04.2022”[“Guidelines for Premature Release, 2022”, vi