The court mandated reconsideration of a convict's premature release based on precedents and remissions earned, underscoring the importance of government policy compliance in similar cases.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2026 The brother of convict Sri.Varghese @ Jose (Convict No.3184) who is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment in Open Prison & Correctional Home Nettukaltheri, Thiruvananthapuram filed this Writ Petition (Crl.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for directing the 2^nd respondent to re-consider the case of convict Sri.Varghese for premature release in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Prasanna v. State of Kerala [ 2025 (3) KLT 299 ].

2. The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I) Thodupuzha convicted the convict in SC No.30/2004 arising out of Crime No.351/2000 for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ). According to the petitioner, as on the date of filing of this petition, the convict had undergone imprisonment for a period of 20 years, 6 months and 2 days and he had earned remission of more than 5 years, 1 month and 7 days as of 19.11.2025. Therefore, according to the learned counsel the convict has in effect undergone more than 25 years in the prison.

3. Relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Prasanna (supra) the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that in similar circumstances this Court has directed the Government to consider the case of prisoners who are deemed to have completed the term of imprisonment in terms of Rule 377 of Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014 and in whose favour there were recommendations by the Advisory Committee for premature release. According to the learned counsel, the brother of the petitioner is also similarly placed and as such he is also entitled to get a similar order as in the decision in Prasanna (supra).

4. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the case of the brother of the petitioner was considered by the Jail Advisory Board and the Board decided to recommend his premature release. However as per Ext.P3 order, the Government rejected his prayer on the ground that he was a person involved in the murder of a woman. No other reason has been stated while passing Ext.P3 order.

In the above circumstances, considering the entire facts, I am inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the Government to re-consider the case of the convict, Sri.Varghese @ Jose (Convict No.3184) in the light of the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Prasanna (supra) and the Supreme Court in Joseph v. State of Kerala [ ILR 2023 (4) Ker. 273 ], within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-