The Supreme Court has expressed shock over the conduct of the State of Tamil Nadu in delaying the premature release of a prisoner convicted for murdering a BJP party functionary in 1997. The Court has ordered the personal presence of a sufficiently senior officer of the state, not below the rank of Additional Secretary. The convict had served more than 24 years of imprisonment and his brother had approached the Apex Court challenging the High Court's decision not to interfere with the refusal of premature release by the state.

The Supreme Court has also granted interim bail to the convict.

During the hearing on Monday, the Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia orally observed, "If somebody has committed a wrong and has served a sentence, there must be a limit - whether it's 23 years, 24 years, or 25 years - unless your remission policy specifies a longer duration based on the nature of the offence. In this case, it is not so; he has served the minimum required period for the nature of the offence."

Justice Kaul also said, "To say that there will be apprehension if he returns to where the incident occurred is an attempt to give it a communal colour. I am very surprised that the State is giving communal colour to it. Furthermore, when he volunteers not to go into sensitive areas, you cannot label the entire Tamil Nadu as sensitive and communal."

Senior Advocate Sidharth Aggarwal appeared for the Petitioner while the Respondents were represented by Advocate-on-Record T. Harish Kumar along with Advocate S. Prabu Ramasubramanian.

The Convict, Ibrahim, was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and one-year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 IPC. Ibrahim was denied the benefit since the Probation Officer’s report informed danger to the life of the Convict Prisoner.

When his brother approached the High Court, it refused to intervene and noted, "That the concerns relating to the safety and security of Ibrahim are not fanciful and cannot be brushed aside as tell tales unworthy of any credence." The Petitioner had submitted that the convict would not go to the area in question.

After the brief hearing, the Supreme Court in its interim order noted, "We are faced with a situation where the petitioner(s) was 18 years of age when he went into custody and has spent now more than 24 years in custody. In terms of the order dated 13.12.2022, we recorded the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that the petitioner(s) was willing to undertake that he will not go to the area in question as the reason cited was security of the petitioner if he was released prematurely."

Continuing the Bench further noted, "We may note that the petitioner(s), then 24 years and 10 months in custody, was released on 24 occasions and that the victim’s family had also moved away from the place of incident, with no whereabouts known, and merely because two families were of two different religious beliefs, that could not be the reason to ad infinitum keep the petitioner(s) in custody."

The Court had noted that on March 13, 2023, senior counsel for the petitioners stated that they were willing to relocate from that area, and the State could specify which areas they should avoid. Despite the Court's inquiry, the respondent appears to have no response to this query, and no affidavit has been filed.

Accordingly, the Court stated that they are left with no option but to direct the personal presence of a sufficiently senior officer not below the rank of Additional Secretary of the Department on the next date of hearing. The Court also granted interim bail to Ibrahim in the meantime and listed the matter for October 30, 2023.

Cause Title: Sikkander v. The State Rep. By Secretary To Govt. Of Tamilnadu & Ors [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 12784/2022]

Click here to read/download the Order



Justice Sanjay Kishan KaulJustice Sudhanshu DhuliaRemissionMadras High Court

Ramey Krishan Rana