HC: Offender’s age no ground for rejecting premature release plea

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, April 17

The age of an offender is no ground for the rejection of a premature release plea, the High Court has held. The ruling came in a case where the plea for premature release was turned down on the ground that the convict was young and his release would not be in public interest, while stipulating that his case would be reconsidered after two years.

It is unwarranted: Bench

The rejection on the ground of the petitioner’s age appears to be unwarranted. It cannot be held against him, as there is no indication that he will commit a similar offence once released. — Justice Jaishree Thakur

“The rejection primarily on the ground of the petitioner’s age appears to be unwarranted. Once the state government has laid down guidelines for premature release, it is incumbent upon it to give reasons for not applying the policy. The petitioner’s age cannot be held against him, as there is no indication that he will commit a similar offence once released,” Justice Jaishree Thakur ruled.

Ranbir had moved the HC against Haryana challenging the denial of his premature release in terms of policy dated April 12, 2002. Justice Thakur’s Bench was told that the petitioner was nominated as an accused in a murder case registered in December 30, 2004, under Sections 302, 307, 353 and 186 of the IPC, along with the provisions of the Arms Act, at the Model Town police station in Panipat. He and the co-accused were sentenced to life imprisonment.

He applied for premature release after 11 years of actual imprisonment and 14 years of total sentence, including remission. His request for premature release was turned down by a state-level committee on the ground that he was required to undergo 14 years of actual sentence, including the undertrial period.

His case was considered again after 14 years of actual sentence, including the under-trial period, and 20 years of total sentence, including remission. But the matter was deferred for two years vide order dated April 28, 2020. Aggrieved, he filed the petition.

The petitioner was convicted in February 2006. As such, policy dated April 12, 2002, would be applicable. It said the case was to be considered on completion of 14 years actual sentence, including the undertrial period, provided the total period, including remission, was not less than 20 years.

Justice Thakur remitted the matter back to the Principal Secretary, Home Affairs and Justice, for fresh order after taking into consideration April 12, 2002, policy and in light of the HC observations.