Supreme Court of India
SHARAFAT ALI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER on 10 February 2022
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 696
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
A
SHARAFAT ALI
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 439 of 2021)
BFEBRUARY 10, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, SURYA KANTAND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Premature release – Relevant considerations – Held:Application for premature release has to be considered on the basisCof the policy as it stood on the date when the petitioner was convictedof the offence – Applicant’s prior criminal history, his conduct andbehavior in jail, and possible danger to the society on his releaseare to be adverted to – There has to be a considered application ofmind to the facts of each case – On facts, petitioner convicted u/s.D302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, had undergone 17years, 9 months and 26 days of imprisonment and submitted anapplication for premature release which was rejected – Said orderby the State government is bereft of an application of mind to relevantcircumstances bearing on whether the petitioner should be released prematurely – Order contains general observations to the effectEthat the release may result in resentment on the side of the victim,but this is a general consideration – Order rejecting the applicationfor premature release suffers from a complete and patent non-application of mind – Issuance of direction to reconsider theapplication of the petitioner for premature release afresh, on basisFof the policy as it stood when the petitioner was convicted of theoffence – Constitution of India – Arts. 21, 32.
State of Haryana & Ors. vs Jagdish (2010) 4 SCC 216: [2010] (3) SCR 716; State of Haryana and Others vsRaj Kumar @ Bitu (2021) 9 SCC 292 – relied on.
G
Case Law Reference
[2010] (3) SCR 716(2021) 9 SCC 292
relied onPara 6relied onPara 6
H
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition(Criminal) No. 439 of 2021.
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India.
K. L. Janjani, Anil Kumar Pandey, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Ardhendhumauli K. Prasad, AAG, Vikas Bansal, Shashi ShekharKumar Prasad, Rohit Kumar Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 32of the Constitution for the enforcement of the right under Article 21 ofthe Constitution, following an order dated 30 July 2021 rejecting theapplication of the petitioner for premature release.
2. The petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishableunder Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860[1]on 17 January 2005 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The judgmentof the trial Judge was affirmed in appeal by the High Court of Judicatureat Allahabad on 3 June 2016. The Special Leave Petition under Article136 of the Constitution was dismissed by this Court on 20 April 2018.
3. The petitioner had undergone 17 years, 9 months and 26 daysof imprisonment and submitted an application for premature release.The application for premature release was rejected on 30 July 2021.The order communicating the rejection of the application which has beenpassed by the State government records that the District Magistrate andthe Superintendent of Police Amethi had in their report stated that if thepetitioner is released prematurely, the possibility that this may causeresentment among the side of the victim cannot be ruled out nor can thepossibility of an offence being committed again by the petitioner beexcluded. The order also states that the petitioner has an “extremistnature” and the presence of bitterness among the parties cannot bedenied.
4. Notice was issued in the petition on 8 November 2021, inpursuance of which a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of theState of Uttar Pradesh.
5. We have heard Mr K L Janjani, counsel for the petitioner andMr Ardhendu Mauli Kumar Prasad, Additional Advocate General forthe State of Uttar Pradesh.
1 “IPC“
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A6. The first principle which must be noted, while adjudicating uponthe petition is that the application for premature release has to beconsidered on the basis of the policy as it stood on the date when thepetitioner was convicted of the offence. This principle finds reiterationin several judgments of this Court such as State of Haryana & Ors. vsJagdish[2]. The most recent of them is the decision in State of HaryanaBand Others vs Raj Kumar @ Bitu[3].
A
7. The order which has been passed by the State government inthe present case is bereft of an application of mind to relevantcircumstances bearing on whether the petitioner should be releasedprematurely. The order contains general observations to the effect thatCthe release may result in resentment on the side of the victim, but this isa general consideration which would govern virtually all criminal offenceswhere a person stands convicted of a serious offence, as in the presentcase under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The order doesnot contain any reference whatsoever to whether the petitioner possessesDany prior criminal history, save and except for the present case. Similarly,the order is completely silent on the conduct and behavior of the petitionerin jail and after he was convicted of the offence. The relevantconsiderations bearing upon whether the release of the petitioner wouldpose a danger to society have not been adverted to. There has to be aconsidered application of mind to the facts of each case.E8. In the circumstances, the order which has been passed rejectingthe application of the petitioner for premature release suffers from acomplete and patent non-application of mind.
9. For the above reasons, we allow the petition by setting asidethe impugned order dated 30 July 2021 passed by the Government ofFUttar Pradesh. We direct that the application of the petitioner forpremature release shall be reconsidered on the basis of the policy as itstood on 17 January 2005, when the petitioner was convicted of an offenceunder Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The application shallbe considered afresh without the petitioner being required to file anyGfresh application for premature release. An order shall be passed aftertaking into account all relevant facts and circumstances including thosewhich have been adverted to above. This exercise shall be completedwithin a period of two months from the date of this order.
2 (2010) 4 SCC 216H3 (2021) 9 SCC 292
SHARAFAT ALI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
10. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
11. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Nidhi Jain
Petition disposed of.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H