The Calcutta High Court directed the Judicial Department to reconsider the plea for premature release of a life-convicted prisoner who had been detained for 32 years, characterising the earlier rejection of his application as speculative and lacking proper reasoning. The Division Bench of the Court, comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray, underscored the rehabilitative purpose of correctional institutions, noting that jails had been renamed correctional homes to facilitate the reform and reintegration of offenders into mainstream society. The Bench observed that if a prisoner who had served nearly three and a half decades of his sentence was refused premature release without sound basis, it could suggest that the State had failed in its duty to reform him.
The petitioner, along with his brother, had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court in 1995, a conviction that was affirmed by the appellate court in 2007. He had remained in custody continuously since the original sentence, completing more than 32 years of incarceration. In 2022, the State Sentence Review Board had considered his plea for premature release and recommended it for approval. However, the Judicial Department declined to accept the recommendation, reasoning that the petitioner, at 51 years of age, was physically capable of committing further offences and, therefore, his release was not justified. Following this refusal, the petitioner filed a writ application challenging the decision, but that was dismissed on the ground that because the Judicial Department had not approved the Review Board’s recommendation, he could not be released.
During the High Court proceedings, the Bench examined the record and noted that there was no adverse report from the correctional home regarding the petitioner’s conduct during his long period of imprisonment. The Court also observed that the petitioner’s co-accused, who was his brother, had already been granted premature release a decade earlier, indicating that similar considerations had been applied in a comparable case. The High Court found that equating the petitioner, who had spent the bulk of his adult life in incarceration, with a free person of the same age was unsound. It held that the Judicial Department’s conclusion—that the petitioner might reoffend merely because he was physically capable—was speculative in nature and not grounded in any assessment of his rehabilitation or actual risk.
The Court highlighted that the Judicial Department had failed to take into account relevant factors, including the absence of any adverse conduct report and the petitioner’s health status. It was noted that the department had not examined the petitioner’s health report before making its decision, yet had relied solely on the general notion that a person of his age and physical capacity could potentially commit offences in the future. The Bench stressed that such reasoning was unsound and lacked evidence, given that the petitioner had completed three decades of imprisonment with no indication of misconduct. It also emphasised that reformation was a central objective of imprisonment and that there was a reasonable possibility that the petitioner had undergone significant reform during his prolonged period of incarceration.
Having found that the Judicial Department’s order rejecting the plea was inadequately reasoned and speculative, the High Court quashed the opinion and order of the Judicial Department. The Court also set aside the order of the Single Judge that had dismissed the earlier writ application. The High Court directed the Principal Secretary of the Judicial Department to reconsider the petitioner’s prayer for premature release in accordance with law, on its merits, and without repeating speculative reasoning. The Bench’s directive called for a fresh evaluation of the petition for premature release, taking account of the petitioner’s lengthy service of his sentence, his conduct in custody, the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board, and other relevant factors that bear on the question of rehabilitation and reintegration.
The Court’s order underscored that the purpose of correctional homes is to assess and facilitate the reformation of offenders and, where appropriate, to allow them an opportunity to rejoin society after serving substantial portions of their sentences. It stressed that a decision to refuse premature release should be supported by sound reasoning and evidence, rather than conjecture about unsubstantiated possibilities. The High Court’s directive to reconsider the petition afresh was intended to ensure that the petitioner’s plea was evaluated fairly, transparently, and in line with statutory principles and judicial expectations regarding rehabilitation and dignity. The matter was remitted to the Judicial Department for reconsideration on its merits, with an instruction to apply proper legal assessment to the facts and circumstances surrounding the petitioner’s long period of incarceration and the absence of adverse conduct reports.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.