Telangana High Court
Joshi Madhavi vs Union Of India on 13 September, 2022
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
****
WRIT PETITION NO. 15654 OF 2019 Between:
Joshi Madhavi ... Petitioner AND Union of India, Home Department, North Block, New Delhi & others ... Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 13.09.2022 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? yes ___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 2 * HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 15654 OF 2019 % 13.09.2022 Between:
Joshi Madhavi ... Petitioner AND Union of India, Home Department, North Block, New Delhi & others ... Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr. V. Raghunath ^ Counsel for Respondents :Mr. R. Mangulal, CGSC Cases cited:
2022 SCC Online SC 635 SLP (Crl.) No. 7369 of 2019, 8326 of 2019 2020 SCC Online SC 626 Order dted 21.08.2020 in WP(Crl.) 4 of 2020 3 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION No.15654 of 2019 O R` D E R:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
" ... to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st and 5th respondents in not considering he requests made by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents vide letter Lr.No.1893/LEGAL/A1/2016, dated 16.04.2016, vide letter Lr.No.1893/Ser.III/A2/2016, dated 11.01.2017 and letter Lr.No.1893/Ser.III/A2/2016, dated 11.12.2017 and letter D.O. Letter No.602/E5/TS-SIB(Int)/2018, dated 01.02.2018 and letter C.No.723/E2/TS-SIB(Int)/2009-19 dated 04.02.2019 for considering the mercy petition to release the totally transformed Convict PBV Ganesh with Number 9889 who is languishing in the prison since 01.12.1995 is illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and consequently Direct the 1st and 5th respondents to take action on the basis of material evidence in the letter Lr.No.1893/LEGAL/A1/2016 dated 16.04.2016 vide letter Lr.No.1893/Ser.III/A2/2016 dated 11.01.2017 and letter Lr.No.1893/Ser.III/A2/2016 dated 11.12.2017 and letter D.O.Letter No.602/E5/TS-
SIB(Int)/2018 dated 01.02.2018 and letter C.No.723/E2/TS- SIB(Int)/2009-19, dated 04.02.2019 and Immediately release the transformed prisoner PBV Ganesh with Number 9889 languishing in the prison since 01.12.1995 immediately ..."
2. Sri V. Raghunath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was convicted on 4 04.08.2000 in S.C.No.315 of 1997 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 302, 120-B, 449, 307 and 307 read with 149 IPC and Section 27(2) of the Arms Act and 147, 149, 506 and 397 IPC and 24(1-A) of Arms Act, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life each for the offences under Section 302 IPC on two counts and under Sections 120-B, 449, 307 and 307 read with 149 IPC and Section 27(2) of the Arms Act and further sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 147 IPC, Rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 148 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under Section 506 IPC, Rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 397 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act. He submits that the Appeal preferred by the petitioner's husband i.e., Criminal Appeal No.1672 of 2000 was dismissed vide judgment dated 31.03.2003. The petitioner's husband-convict prisoner also preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court, vide Crl.A.No.174 of 2004 and that was also dismissed on 23.07.2009 and he is languishing in jail from 01.12.1995. He 5 further submits that the convict prisoner was on parole multiple times and he never jumped parole and returned to the jail in time. The convict prisoner has completed B.A., M.A. (Sociology), M.A. (Political Science) from Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Open University, Computer Fundamental and MS Office from National Council for Vocational Training and currently studying M.A. (Psychology) from Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Open University and he is a volunteer in a Prisoner Reformation Program named 'Unnathi' a Cognitive Behavioural Skill Development Program run by retired Professor Beena, Osmania University. The convict prisoner was also recommended by the jail authorities of Cherlapally to be a trainer for Mahabubnagar District prisoners. The convict prisoner has to undergo dilation every four months for entire life and he is also suffering from sciatica, back ache and severe migraine. Learned counsel submits that the Director General of Police of United Andhra Pradesh, vide letters dated 31.05.2010 and 29.09.2010 addressed to the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, recommending the release of the convict prisoner stating the convict prisoner is a changed man and is in a state of repentance of his past and there may not be any danger to the society or breach of peace if he is 6 released. The State Human Rights Commission has also directed the authorities concerned on 24.01.2011 to consider the mercy petition of the convict prisoner immediately. He further submits that the petitioner's husband had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.20004 of 2011, wherein this Court held that after considering the above reports from the concerned officials, that the convict is at liberty to make an application before the Government for grant of remission of punishment to commute the sentence so as to enable the Government to consider his case under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence), Commissioner of Police, Collector of Ranga Reddy District and Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Cherlaplly, addressed letters and recommended the Director General of Prisons and Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, for grant of pardon and the convict prisoner may be released on mercy grounds.
Learned counsel submits that Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District vide letter dated 20.04.2012 had recommended to the Director General of Prisons and Inspector General of Prisons and 7 Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh for grant of pardon to the petitioner's husband. He submits that the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Legal Department, had written to the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India vide letter dated 16.04.2016 requesting to consider for according necessary permission for granting remission of life sentence to the convicted prisoner. He submits that the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Legal Department, Andhra Pradesh vide proceedings dated 01.12.2017 had given no objection to the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Legal Department, Telangana for granting remission and releasing the petitioner's husband from jail and the same was communicated to the Central Government, Ministry of Home Affairs. It has been specifically brought to the notice of the authorities that husband of the petitioner is completely changed man with good behaviour and completed almost 27 years of imprisonment including remission period. Learned counsel submits that the 1st respondent i.e. Union of India and CBI has not responded to the letters written by the Government of Telangana since last three years. He submits that one of the prisoners named Khadir was released much 8 earlier to the petitioner. Even the wife of the deceased has given consent to the convict through paper statement that she has no objection if the petitioner is prematurely released. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has completed more than actual years of incarceration and with remission around 28 years in jail. He submits that the respondents are not taking any action and the petitioner is suffering with several health issues.
3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the CBI. Learned Standing Counsel submits that infrastructure and manpower of CBI is very limited and the case matter in petition does not involve any complicated issues of law or interstate ramifications. Hence, they have stated that they will abide by the orders passed by this Court.
4. A counter-affidavit is also filed by the 1st respondent Union of India. Sri R. Mangulal, learned Central Government Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has committed heinous offence and he is a notorious criminal and belongs to the erstwhile Peoples War Group (PWG), a naxalite group which has been merged with Maoist Communist Centre (MCC) to form CPI (Maoist). It is stated that CPI (Maoist) is one of the dreaded 9 terrorist groups having influence in large parts of the country. It is an unlawful association under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the petitioner's husband has committed most heinous crime in furtherance of the ideology of terrorist group. If he is released prematurely, he will rejoin his group. The accused was rightly convicted and awarded life imprisonment by the trial Court and there is no reason or circumstance to reduce his life sentence as contemplated under Section 433(A) of Cr.P.C. and if the sentence is reduced, it would encourage others to commit such offences expecting remission of sentence and it would set a bad precedent and encourage such crimes in the society. CBI has also stated that it is against the national / public interest to release life convicts prematurely. Further, the Central Government does not consider it a fit case for agreeing to the Telangana Government's proposal for remission under Section 433-A read with Section 435(1) of Cr.P.C. and the same was not agreed to. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner's husband is not entitled for remission.
5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government stating that petitioner has completed 28 10 years (with remission) without any adverse remarks and pursued his Degree and post graduation through open university while he is undergoing sentence. He appears to have reformed himself with good behaviour and is regretting for his association with Maoists as an underground cadre. He got married while undergoing sentence with an intention to lead a normal life in the society. Further, his wife pinned hopes on the government for his premature release enabling them to lead the rest of life peacefully and further, he is suffering from chronic sciatica and frequent attack of migraine and other psychological problems. It is stated that petitioner's husband is under police surveillance and there are no adverse remarks against him. Since his imprisonment, many senior Maoist cadre including Central Committee Members, State Committee members were either arrested or surrendered. During their examination and investigation, none of them indicated about his contacts with the banned organization after his arrest and there has been no mention about his clandestine links / activity in any of the documents seized by the security forces during Exchange of Fire and arrest of cadres in the last 20 years. These amply vindicate the plea of the petitioner that the convicted prisoner has not 11 been maintaining any links with the CPI (Maoist), the banned life-wing extremist organization. It is also stated that petitioner's husband was on parole 11 times but he had never tried to jump bail nor overstayed. Jail authorities also certified his good behaviour and reformed nature and there are no adverse remarks against him. It is stated that on 16.04.2016, the Principal Secretary, Home (Legal) Department, Government of Telangana addressed a letter to the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs (Left Wing Extremist), Government of India, New Delhi bringing to his notice that the Government of Telangana has issued orders for grant of remission of sentences to 251 prisoners in the State and it also proposed to consider grant of remission of sentence to the instant life convicted prisoner in view of his good behaviour and several letters were addressed to them. Learned Government Pleader submits that they have issued G.O.Ms.No. 16, dated 17.01.2016 framing guidelines for premature release of life convicts - grant of special remission on the occasion of 26th January 2016 and life convicts (male) convicted in murder of pubic servants while performing duty on completion of 18 years of actual sentence including remand period and 24 years of total sentence including 12 remission. Pursuant to the said G.O., a list of eligible prisoners for premature release was prepared and in the said list, the name of the petitioner's husband was also included. As the case in which he was involved was investigated by CBI, necessary permission is required to be obtained from the Central Government. Hence, they have addressed a letter to the Deputy Inspector General of Police & HOB, SCB, CBI to examine the matter to grant necessary permission for his premature release. They have specifically brought to the notice that there may not be any danger to the society and breach of peace, if he is released prematurely. In the counter, it is stated that the 5th respondent CBI has filed a counter stating that they are willing to abide by the directions issued by this Court.
6. Petitioner's husband has been convicted and languishing in jail from 1996. The counter-affidavit filed by the government discloses that the petitioner's husband was several times on parole and he never jumped bail. His behaviour in jail is also good and there are no adverse reports against him. The jail authorities and the police department have given a clean chit to the petitioner's husband that he is exhibiting good 13 conduct. Taking into consideration his track record in jail, they felt that he is eligible as per the policy of the government for premature release. As the investigation was done by the CBI, when they sought permission from them, according to the counter filed by the State Government, no response is given to them. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Central Government wherein they mentioned about the heinous nature of offence and what has been done and according to them, if the petitioner's husband is released prematurely, it would set a bad precedent and people will commit offences with the hope that they will get remission. The Central Government has not mentioned anything about the conduct of the petitioner's husband and if he is released prematurely, how it is detrimental to the interests of the society and how he is not entitled for premature release. The reports of the State Government and Prisons Department are that the petitioner's husband is reformed, the same was not considered by the Central Government and they could not give any plausible reasons for not releasing the petitioner's husband prematurely. The State Government while considering the Application under Section 433-A Cr.P.C., basing on the conduct of the petitioner's 14 husband, has taken a policy decision and when a letter is addressed to the Central Government, they ought to have looked into it in a proper perspective.
7. Instead of considering the fact whether the petitioner's husband is entitled for the remission as per the report of the government wherein they have in detail has stated about the conduct of the prisoner and how many years he has been behind bars, the Central Government has rejected stating that petitioner's husband has committed a heinous offence and he should not be released as it would set a very bad precedent. This Court is not able to appreciate the manner in which this issue is dealt with by the Central Government. The authorities while exercising the power of remission must not look at the same as a charity but as discharge of a legal duty which is required to be performed upon fulfillment of certain conditions as determined by the Authorities. Further, a prisoner is entitled for remission based on his conduct. In this, it is not the case of the Central Government that petitioner's husband has failed to fulfill the requisites for the purpose of remission. They even failed to examine in that line but focused on the nature of 15 offence. At this stage, after 27 years in the prison when the prisoner is seeking remission, those are not the parameters to reject the request for remission. This kind of approach would be against the principles of reformation and will push the convict into a dark hole without there being a semblance of light at the end of the tunnel. There is no dispute about the fact that remission cannot be asked as of right or as a fundamental right. The Hon'ble Apex Court time and again observed that the State while exercising its executive power of remission shall assess each individual case bearing in mind the facts which are specific to that case. It can be looked at as a reward for the good conduct exhibited by the convict. This Court is conscious of the wide constitutional powers of the Executive in the cases of remission which is upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in several cases.
8. Coming back to the facts and circumstances of the case where the convict is languishing in jail from 01.12.1995, he was on parole multiple times, who has exhibited the best conduct over the years, suffering from health ailments and way back in 2010 itself, letters were addressed by the Director 16 General of Police recommending the release of convict prisoner as he is a changed man. In 2017 i.e. on 01.12.2017, the Principal Secretary, Andhra Pradesh has given no objection for granting remission. The same could not be taken forward in this case as CBI has done the investigation. Section 435 reads thus:
435. State Government to act after consultation with Central Government in certain cases.--
(1) The powers conferred by Sections 432 and 433 upon the State Government to remit or commute a sentence, in any case where the sentence is for an offence--
(a) which was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, or
(b) which involved the misappropriation or destruction of, or damage to, any property belonging to the Central Government, or
(c) which was committed by a person in the service of the Central Government while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, shall not be exercised by the State Government except after consultation with the Central Government.
(2) No order of suspension, remission or commutation of sentences passed by the State Government in relation to a person, who has been convicted of offences, some of which relate to matters to which the executive power of the Union extends, and who has been sentenced to separate terms of imprisonment which are to run concurrently, shall have effect unless an order for the suspension, remission or commutation, as the case may be, of such sentences has also been made by the Central Government in relation to the offences 17 committed by such person with regard to matters to which the executive power of the Union extends.
9. It is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. V. Sriharan1 has observed that:-
173.11. In the light of the above general principles, while interpreting Section 435(1)(a) which mandates that any State Government while acting as the "appropriate Government" for exercising its powers under Sections 432 and 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code and consider for remission or commutation to necessarily consult the Central Government. In this context the requirement of the implication of Section 432(7)(a) has to be kept in mind, more particularly in the light of the prescription contained in Article 73(1)(a) and Article 162 read along with its proviso, which asserts the status of the Central Government authorities as possessing all-pervasive right to hold the Executive Power by virtue of express conferment under the Constitution or under any law made by Parliament though the State Legislature may also have the power to make laws on those subjects.
173.13. Cases, wherein, the investigation is held by the agencies under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 or by any other agency engaged to make investigation into an offence under the Central Act other than the Criminal Procedure Code, and where such offence investigated assumes significance having regard to the implication that it caused or likely to cause in the interest of the Nation or in respect of national figures of very high status by resorting to diabolic criminal conduct at the instance of any person, whether 1 (2016) 7 SCC 1 : (2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 695 : 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1267 at page 135 18 such person belongs to this country or of any foreign origin, either individually or representing any body of personnel or an organization or a group, it must be stated that such situation should necessarily be taken as the one coming within the category of internal or external aggression or disturbance and thereby casting a duty on the Centre as prescribed under Article 355 of the Constitution to act in the interest of the Nation as a whole and also ensure that the Government of every State is carried in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Such situation cannot be held to be interfering with the independent existence of the State concerned.
173.14. Similar test should be applied where there is application of Section 435(1)(b) or (c). It can be visualized that where the property of the Central Government referred to relates to the security borders of this country or the property in the control and possession of the Army or other security forces of the country or the warships or such other properties or the personnel happen to be in the services of the Centre holding very sensitive positions and in possession of very many internal secrets or other vulnerable information and indulged in conduct putting the interest of the Nation in peril, it cannot be said that in such cases, the nature of "consultation" will be a mere formality. It must be held that even in those cases the requirement of "consultation" will assume greater significance and primacy to the Centre.
173.12. In a situation as the one arising in the above context, it must be stated, that by virtue of such status available with the Central Government possessing the Executive Power, having regard to the pronouncement of the larger Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. [Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441] 19 and S.R. Bommai [S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1] , the Executive Power of the Centre should prevail over the State as possessing higher constitutional power specifically adorned on the Central Government under Article 73(1)(a).
174. It must also be noted that the nature of requirement contemplated and prescribed in Sections 435(1) and (2) is distinct and different. As because the expression "concurrence" is used in sub- section (2) it cannot be held that the expression "consultation" used in sub-section (1) is lesser in force. As was pointed out by us in para 173.14., the situations arising under sub-sections (1)(a) to (c) will have far more far-reaching consequences if allowed to be operated upon without proper check. Therefore, even though the expression used in sub-section (1) is "consultation", in effect, the said requirement is to be expressed far more strictly and with utmost care and caution, as each one of the clauses (a) to (c) contained in the said sub-section, if not properly applied in its context may result in serious violation of constitutional mandate as has been set out in Article 355 of the Constitution. It is, therefore, imperative that it is always safe and appropriate to hold that in those situations covered by clauses (a) to (c) of Section 435(1) falling within the jurisdiction of the Central Government, it will assume primacy and consequently the process of "consultation" should in reality be held as the requirement of "concurrence".
238. Further, in certain cases investigation is transferred to CBI under express orders of the superior court. There are number of such examples and the cases could be of trans-border ramifications such as Stamp Papers scam or Chit Fund scam where the offence may have been committed in more than one States or it could be cases where the role and conduct of the State Government concerned 20 was such that in order to have transparency in the entirety of the matter, the superior court deemed it proper to transfer the investigation to CBI. It would not then be appropriate to allow the same State Government to exercise power under Sections 432 and 433 on its own and in such matters, the opinion of the Central Government must have a decisive status. In cases where the investigation was so conducted by CBI or any such Central investigating agency, the Central Government would be better equipped and likely to be more correct in its view. Considering the context of the provision, in our view comparatively greater weight ought to be attached to the opinion of the Central Government which through CBI or other Central investigating agency was in charge of the investigation and had complete carriage of the proceedings.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in A.G.Perarivalan v. State, Through Superintended of Police CBI/SIT/MMDA/Chennai, Tamil Nadu and Anr2, dealing with the case of remission observed that:-
" 29. Mr. Sankaranarayanan has submitted a list of cases wherein this Court, in the specific facts and circumstances of those cases, has directed release of the prisoner convicted under Section 302 simpliciter or along with other offences, taking note of the prolonged period of incarceration, educational qualifications obtained during the period of incarceration, conduct in jail as well as the futility of subjecting the prisoners to another round of litigation.
30. The Appellant was 19 years of age at the time of his arrest 2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 635 21 and has been incarcerated for 32 years, out of which he has spent 16 years on the death row and 29 years in solitary confinement. There has been no complaint relating to his conduct in jail. On the two occasions that the Appellant had been released on parole, there had been no complaint regarding his conduct or breach of any condition of release. Medical records, filed on behalf of the Appellant, show that he is suffering from chronic ailments. Apart from his good behaviour in jail, the Appellant has also educated himself and successfully completed his +2 exams, an undergraduate degree, a postgraduate degree, a diploma and eight certification courses. Given that his petition under Article 161 remained pending for two and a half years following the recommendation of the State Cabinet for remission of his sentence and continues to remain pending for over a year since the reference by the Governor, we do not consider it appropriate to remand the matter for the Governor's consideration. In the absence of any other disqualification and in the exceptional facts and circumstances of this case, in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution, we direct that the Appellant is deemed to have served the sentence in connection with Crime No. 329 of 1991. The Appellant, who is on bail, is set at liberty forthwith.
31. In conclusion, we have summarised our findings below:
(f) Taking into account the Appellant's prolonged period of incarceration, his satisfactory conduct in jail as well as during parole, chronic ailments from his medical records, his educational qualifications acquired during incarceration and the pendency of his petition under Article 161 for two and a half years after the recommendation of the State Cabinet, we do not consider it fit to remand the matter for the Governor's consideration. In exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution, we direct that the Appellant is deemed to have served the sentence in connection with 22 Crime No. 329 of 1991. The Appellant, who is already on bail, is set at liberty forthwith. His bail bonds are cancelled.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Satish @ Sabbe v. The State of Uttar Pradesh3 while adjudicating the Appeal against a common order dated 28.04.2017 of the Allahabad High Court wherein the Appeal against conviction under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code and consequential sentence of life imprisonment was turned down, has disposed the said Appeal with a direction that the petitioners be released on probation, has held in the following paras as follows:-
" 19. Indeed, the petitioners' case is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by this Court in Shor v. State of Uttar Pradesh4, which has later been followed in Munna v. State of Uttar Pradesh5, the relevant extract of which is reproduced as under:
"A reading of the order dated 22.01.2018 shows that the Joint Secretary, Government of UP. has failed to apply his mind to the conditions of Section 2 of the U.P. Act. Merely repeating the fact that the crime is heinous and that release of such a person would send a negative message against the justice system in the society are factors de hors Section 2. Conduct in prison has not been referred to at all and the Senior Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate confirming that the prisoner is not "incapacitated" from committing 3 SLP(CRL)No.7369 of 2019, 8326 of 2019 4 2020 SCC OnLine SC 626 5 Order dated 21-08-2020 in WP(Crl) 4 of 2020.23
the crime is not tantamount to stating that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life if released from prison. Also having regard to the long incarceration of 29 years (approx.) without remission, we do not wish to drive the petitioner to a further proceeding challenging the order dated 22.01.2018 when we find that the order has been passed mechanically and without application of mind to Section 2 of the U.P. Act."
20. It seems to us that the petitioners' action of kidnapping was nothing but a fanciful attempt to procure easy money, for which they have learnt a painful life lesson. Given their age, their case ought to be viewed through a prism of positivity. They retain the ability to re-integrate with society and can spend many years leading a peaceful, disciplined, and normal human life. Such a hopeful expectation is further concretized by their conduct in jail. It is revealed from the additional affidavit dated 05.09.2020 filed by Anita @ Varnika (wife of Vikky) that during the course of his incarceration in jail he has pursued as many as eight distance-learning courses, which include (1) passing his Intermediate Examination, (il) learning computer hardware, (iii) obtaining a degree in Bachelor of Arts; as well as numerous certificates in (iv) food and nutrition, (v) human rights,
(vi) environmental studies. Vikky's conduct shines as a bright light of hope and redemption for many other incarcerated prisoners. Compounded by their roots and familial obligations, we believe it is extremely unlikely that the petitioners would commit any act which could shatter or shame their familial dreams.
21. In the present case, considering how the petitioners have served nearly two decades of incarceration and have thus suffered the consequences of their actions; a balance between individual and societal welfare can be struck by granting the 24 petitioners conditional premature release, subject to their continuing good conduct. This would both ensure that liberty of the petitioners is not curtailed, nor that there is any increased threat to society. Suffice to say that this order is not irreversible and can always be recalled in the event of any future misconduct or breach by the petitioners.
12. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above judgments, the conclusion arrived at by the Central Government in rejecting the accused case for remission cannot withstand the legal scrutiny. Hence, the 1st respondent shall consider the letter dated 01.02.2018 addressed by the 2nd respondent on the grounds whether he fulfills the policy of the Central Government on remission, the conduct and the relevant aspects but not on the ground that he has committed the heinous offence, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
13. The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.
14. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
25
__________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 13th September 2022 Issue CC forthwith.
LR copy to be marked ksld