In a recent order, the Supreme Court set aside the premature release of a life convict from Uttar Pradesh who had only served 2 years, 5 months, and 12 days of his sentence, in stark violation of the State’s remission policy requiring life convicts to serve at least 14 years before being eligible for release.

The Court took a strong stance against the Uttar Pradesh jail authorities for recommending the convict’s name for remission and questioned the State’s failure to take back custody of the convict despite earlier rulings.

The Bench of Justice J.K. Maheswari and Justice Rajesh Bindal expressed shock over the convict's premature release and sought explanations from the Principal Secretary (Home) and Principal Secretary (Prison) of Uttar Pradesh.

The Court directed the officials to file a detailed affidavit within 8 weeks, explaining how the jail authorities recommended the petitioner for remission despite the clear violation of the policy, and why the State had not sought his return to custody after the premature release was found to be unjustified.

During the hearing, AoR Sanjai Kumar Pathak appeared for the petitioner, and Senior Additional Advocate General (AAG) Garima Prasad appeared for the State of UP.

The petitioner, who had been convicted of life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 1983, was released from Central Jail, Agra, in March 2024. His premature release was based on a 2013 Allahabad High Court's order in another case, which provided general directions for the release of convicts. However, the full bench of the High Court had later overruled that decision, stating that only the appropriate government could grant remission and that such decisions could not be made by the judiciary.

The Court noted that despite the High Court’s ruling, the State of Uttar Pradesh had failed to take steps to return the released convicts, including the petitioner, to custody. The bench remarked, “It is quite perplexing that the petitioner, a convict who has only undergone imprisonment for a total period of 2 years and 5 months, which is significantly lesser than the minimum period of imprisonment required for a life convict to be eligible for remission, has been released from prison.”

The Court further directed the petitioner to surrender within two months. It also directed the Uttar Pradesh government to provide details about how many other convicts had been released prematurely under similar circumstances and whether those convicts had been taken back into custody. The affidavit must also clarify whether the released convicts were eligible for remission according to the State's policies, and if not, how their names were recommended for release.

"In the attending facts and circumstances, this Court cannot help but take a strict view of the matter. The order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura releasing the Petitioner on bail is hereby set aside and the Petitioner is directed to surrender within a period of two months to serve the life sentence. If the Petitioner does not surrender, Trial Court shall take appropriate measures / steps to take him into custody," the Court directed.

The petitioner, along with others, had been named in an FIR lodged in 1982 and was found guilty by the trial court on February 5, 1983. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and had served only 2 years before his premature release in 2024. The Allahabad High Court had dismissed his criminal appeal in 2018, and his special leave petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court was also dismissed in August 2024.

Despite these judicial setbacks, the petitioner was prematurely released from prison based on directions issued in a different appeal, Ganesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court questioned the legality of this release, noting that the Ganesh ruling had been overturned by a full bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ambrish Kumar Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which held that remission powers lie solely with the appropriate government and cannot be decided by judicial directives.

Looking at the gravity of the matter, the Bench said, "We must also seek a detailed affidavit from the Principal Secretary (Home) and Principal Secretary (Prisons) of the State of Uttar Pradesh." The Court has sought a detailed affidavit on the following:

a. How the Jail Authorities could recommend the case of the Petitioner for remission without compliance of the State’s remission policy which mandates 14 years minimum imprisonment for a life convict to be considered for remission since he had only served a period of 2 years and 5 months of imprisonment?

b. After the decision of the Full Bench in Ambarish (Supra) setting aside directions issued in Ganesh (Supra), whether the Petitioner has been taken back in custody? If not, whether any steps have been taken by the State of Uttar Pradesh in that regard?

c. How many convicts have been taken back in custody after the aforesaid directions were set aside by the Full Bench?

d. Whether these convicts were eligible for premature release as per State Remission Policy? If not, how were their names recommended for remission / premature release by the concerned Jail Authorities?

e. Whether their application for remission of the aforementioned convicts was pending on the date of their release on interim bail?

Accordingly, the Court scheduled the matter for further consideration after eight weeks.

Cause Title: Surendra @ Sunda v. State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 28783/2023]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Sanjai Kumar Pathak (AOR), Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Shashi Pathak, Maruti Nandan

Respondent: Senior Additional Advocate General (AAG) Garima Prasad, Advocates Pradeep Misra (AOR), Daleep Dhyani, Suraj Singh

Click here to read or download the Order


Justice JK MaheshwariJustice Rajesh Bindal

Sukriti Mishra