J U D G M E N T

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The issue involved in this appeal is as regards the legality of the conditions imposed while remitting the life sentence of the appellant in the exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’). There is an identical provision in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) in the form of sub-section (1) of Section 473.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

3. The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Anita Malhotraunder Section 302 read with Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Date: 2024.10.21 Reason:

Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and was sentenced on 18th February 2008 to undergo life imprisonment. The conviction of the appellant has attained finality.

4. The present appeal arises out of an order passed by the High Court of Gujarat on an application made by the appellant for grant of parole under Rule 19 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. As the prayer was rejected by the impugned order, this appeal was filed before this Court. While arguing the appeal before this Court, on 26th June 2023, a submission was made on behalf of the appellant that the application for remission made by the appellant under sub-section (2) of Section 432 of the CrPC was not being considered by the State Government. Therefore, a notice was issued on 26th June 2023 on that limited aspect, and a direction was issued to expeditiously decide the pending application for grant of remission.

5. On 15th September 2023, the Home Department of the Government of Gujarat passed an order granting remission to the appellant. His remaining sentence was remitted. While granting remission by the order dated 15th September 2023, four conditions were imposed, which read thus:

“Conditions:

(1) After the release from jail the prisoner shall behave decently for 2 (Two) years. For this purpose he has to submit two Sureties of the respectable persons of the Society stating that the prisoner shall not breach the peace and harmony of the society and also shall not threaten the complainant and witnesses.

(2) If the prisoner after the release from the jail carries out any cognizable offence or inflict any serious injury to any citizen or property then he will be arrested again and he will have to serve the remaining period of sentence in jail.

(3) After being released from jail the prisoner shall mark his presence in the nearest police station for a period of 1 (one) year.

(4) The prisoner shall be released only after paying the unpaid fine amount if any.”

(emphasis added)

As the appellant was aggrieved by the first two conditions, we permitted him to amend the appeal and challenge conditions nos.1 and 2 instead of driving him to file a fresh writ petition before the High Court.

SUBMISSIONS

6. Mr Rauf Rahim, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has made submissions on the power of the State Government to impose conditions while granting remission. He submits that the impugned conditions defeat the very object of the grant of remission. He submitted that the word “decently”

used in condition no.1 is vague. The concept of decency differs from person to person. Therefore, putting such a condition of maintaining decent behaviour is completely violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India being manifestly arbitrary. It is submitted that putting such a condition confers arbitrary power on the State Government to cancel the remission order. Hence, the condition violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. Regarding condition no.2, the learned senior counsel submitted that even if a false allegation is made against the appellant of commission of any cognizable offence, he will be deprived of remission granted under the order dated 15th September 2023. The learned senior counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shaikh Abdul Azees v. State of