IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, VIVEK CHAUDHARY, JJ.
Ambrish Kumar Verma - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Scy. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others - Respondents
Criminal MISC. Writ Petition No. 1915 of 2024
Decided On : 30-05-2024
RELEASE - PREMATURE RELEASE OF CONVICTS - The court addressed the legality of a Division Bench's directions regarding the premature release of convicts whose remission applications were pending. It concluded that such general directions were not in accordance with law, as they conferred powers not vested in the Chief Judicial Magistrates, thus invalidating the impugned order of release.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the premature release order of Shyampal Verma, which was granted based on a prior Division Bench's directions in a separate case regarding the handling of remission applications pending beyond six months.
Finding of the Court:
The Larger Bench found that the Division Bench's general directions to release convicts were not lawful and exceeded the authority of the Chief Judicial Magistrates, leading to the invalidation of the release order.
Issues: 1. Whether the Division Bench's directions for premature release were lawful. 2. Whether the High Court could confer jurisdiction upon Chief Judicial Magistrates that the law does not provide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Division Bench's directions were not in accordance with law, as they improperly conferred powers on Chief Judicial Magistrates to release convicts based on pending applications for remission.
Final Decision: The impugned order of premature release dated 2.3.2024 was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Short counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Ravi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.3, Sri Arvind Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and perused the record.
3. Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of premature release of opposite party no.3-Shyampal Verma dated 2.3.2024 in Sessions Trial no.90 of 2007 in Case Crime No.52 of 2006, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302, 427 & 504 of I.P.C., Police Station Motiganj, District Gonda.
4. Facts of the case are that a Division Bench of this Court passed detailed directions in Criminal Appeal No.165 of 2016 (Ganesh vs. State of U.P.) in its judgment and order dated 10.1.2024 providing that where the remission application is pending for more than six months after recommendation by the Superintendent of Jail, the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned shall forthwith release the convict as per the the directions contained in the said judgment. Opposite party no.3 had filed an application for his release, which was allowed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned by the impugned order dated 2.3.2024 while similar application of opposite party no.4 was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
5. A Reference was made in the present writ petition by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 21.3.2024 with regard to correctness of the view taken in the case of Ganesh (supra). The following questions were referred to the Larger Bench.
(2) Whether the High Court in exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. can confer jurisdiction upon the Chief Judicial Magistrates/Magistrates in the District Courts which the law otherwise does not confer upon them?"
6. The aforesaid questions were replied by the Larger Bench by order dated 25.5.2024, which reads as follows:
(2) Learned AGA submits that there is no power vested by the High Court in the Chief Judicial Magistrates for grant of bail. The said power is already exercised by granting bail to all such persons and the Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed only to release such person(s) whose applications are pending beyond a particular time by accepting their bail/surety bonds. However, we leave the said question unanswered as in Question-A, we have already held that the directions of the Division in Ganesh (Supra) are not as per law."
7. In view thereof, since the Larger Bench has already held that the Division Bench in Ganesh (supra) could not have issued any direction for issuing general directions of bail commanding the Chief Judicial Magistrate to release the convicts, the impugned order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda based upon the said directions in the case of Ganesh (supra) cannot stand.
8. Therefore, the impugned order dated 2.3.2024 cannot stand and is set aside.
9. The Registrar General is directed to forthwith communicate a copy of this order along with the order passed by the Large Bench dated 25.5.2024 to all the Judicial Officers.
10. With the aforesaid, present
The court established that general directions for the premature release of convicts based on pending remission applications are not legally permissible and exceed the jurisdiction of the Chief Judici....
The court established that the authority to grant remission rests with the government, and courts can only compel timely decisions on remission applications without granting bail en masse.
Procedural safeguards in remission applications must be strictly followed, and reliance on insufficiently reasoned opinions can render decisions unsustainable.
Premature release criteria and the Governor's power under Article 161 are constrained once the petitioner completes the mandatory 14-year imprisonment period and the recommendation by the Council of ....
The court clarified that life convicts are eligible for premature release considerations, with proper compliance of procedural requirements, including set-off periods of incarceration during trial.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.