Can’t deny prisoner premature release on grounds of pending cases, says HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the focus of criminal justice should be on reforming prisoners, not just punishing them. It added that the state could not delay deciding a prisoner’s request for early release if the policy in place did not allow such postponement.
“The theory of reformation and rehabilitation that emerged in the 18th century aims at separating the criminal from the crime and compels us to look beyond the one fateful act committed by him. In a civilised society like ours, it would be truly unfortunate, if an offender is not given the opportunity to realise and fully fathom his mistake and channel that awareness into making fruitful contributions in society,” Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed.
The court added that the “peno-correctional institutes” must not only be looked at as a place for carrying out punishment, but for rehabilitation. “The criminal justice dispensation system must be guided by the idea of allowing the offender to rectify his wrong and reintegrate into the society as a law-abiding member once the sentence is served,” Justice Brar asserted.
The ruling came in a case where the petitioner was convicted by an Additional Sessions Judge in a case stemming from an FIR registered in July 2008 for murder and other offences under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of the Arms Act. A state-level committee in Haryana declined the premature release case of petitioner vide order dated August 6, 2024, stating that he was involved in nine other criminal offences. His conduct required further evaluation as he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Asserting that a duly enacted policy “must be honoured and applied to each case in its letter and spirit,” Justice Brar held that unjustified delay in considering a case for premature release amounted to “unjust curtailment of liberty”.
Referring to the facts of the case in hand, the Bench noted that the premature release policy dated August 13, 2008, did not provide any scope for deferring a case on grounds such as pending cases or general observations on conduct. “The competent authority is required to assess the case, strictly in terms of the applicable policy, and pass a reasoned order either accepting or rejecting the applicant’s claim,” Justice Brar made clear.
Setting aside the state-level committee order, Justice Brar directed the respondents to consider the case afresh strictly in accordance with the applicable policy and the law laid down in precedent judgments preferably within eight weeks.
Justice Brar also warned that “any deviation from the policy or the guidelines/directions given by this court would entitle the petitioner to file an appropriate petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, seeking initiation of contempt of court proceedings against the official concerned.”
Chandigarh