Vinod Alias Ganja v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr

ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

¶1The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: "a) Allow the present petition in favour of the Petitioner in FIR No. 40/1992, PS Mukherjee Nagar by passing appropriate orders/ directions as well as issuance of writs in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other applicable writ and/ or directions or order to the Respondents thereby allowing premature release of the Petitioner in accordance with the applicable short sentencing policy of the Respondent i.e. 2004

Guidelines on account of delay in consideration by the Competent Authority;

b) Pass any other writ, order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may consider fit and proper in the interest and furtherance of justice."

¶2The brief facts of the case are that an FIR bearing no. 40/1992 was registered under Sections 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter as 'IPC') read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 against the petitioner at Police Station - Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi.

¶3In the year 2000, the petitioner was convicted under the said offences by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi vide order dated 21st March, 2000 and was directed to undergo life imprisonment.

¶4Subsequently, the said conviction was upheld by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the year 2016 vide order dated 8th February, 2016.

¶5In the year 2023, the petitioner was released on furlough vide order dated 29th September, 2024. In W.P. (Crl) bearing no. 477/2023, the petitioner was arrayed as a party and was granted protection from surrendering by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 9th October, 2023.

¶6Thereafter, the jail authorities issued communication dated 18th October, 2023 acknowledging the list of convicts eligible for grant of premature release. However, it is stated that the case of the petitioner is yet to be considered by the Sentence Review Board ('SRB' hereinafter).

¶7Aggrieved by the same, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶8Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has maintained good conduct throughout his period of incarceration and he has been in judicial custody for 14 years, 2 months, 28 days.

¶9It is submitted that despite being eligible for premature release, the SRB did not take his case for consideration, therefore, violating the fundamental rights provided to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶10It is submitted that the respondent-State has failed to abide by the SRB Guidelines, 2004 ('2004 policy' hereinafter) and the non-conformation to the same is a ground for this Court to intervene and grant relief to the petitioner.

¶11It is submitted that the serious lapse on part of the authorities is not only in contravention to their own policy, but also to numerous judgments given by this Court, whereby, it was held that non-conducting of the SRB is an infringement of the fundamental right of an inmate.

¶12It is submitted that the similarly placed convicts have already been released while petitioner's case is not yet considered, therefore, the said non-action on part of the respondent-State has led to undue hardships to the petitioner.

¶13It is also submitted that the petitioner has the additional responsibility of looking after his brother's family after his death in the year 2021, and therefore, his release is necessitated by several factors.

¶14Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, the learned senior counsel prayed that the present petition be allowed.

¶15Per Contra, the learned ASC appearing for the state vehemently opposed the instant petition submitting to the effect that the present petition is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law.

¶16It is submitted that the SRB has already considered the case of the petitioner in the meeting held on 23rd February, 2024 and rejected his plea for premature release.

¶17It is submitted that the relevant rules do not bar any convict to be eligible for consideration for premature release again, however the same can only be done post 6 months from the last date of consideration, therefore, the case of the petitioner shall be placed before the SRB in the next meeting and the instant petition being devoid of any merit may be dismissed.

¶18Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶19The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent-State has failed to constitute an SRB for consideration of his premature release, therefore, violating his fundamental right to life and liberty.

¶20In rebuttal, the learned ASC has stated that the SRB was duly constituted and the petitioner's case was considered in the meeting dated

23rd February, 2024 and the decision of rejection was conveyed vide order dated 15th October, 2024.

¶21As discernible from the facts, the petitioner was convicted in the year 2000 and the same was upheld by this Court in the year 2016. In the year 2023, the petitioner was granted furlough and the same was extended on various occasions.

¶22It is no doubt that the 2004 policy prescribes for release of the convicts once they become eligible for the same as per the rules provided under the policy. The relevant part of the same reads as under: "The Board shall follow the following Procedure and Guidelines while reviewing the cases and making its recommendation to the competent authority.

(i) The Director General of Prisons shall convene a meeting of the Sentence Review Board on a date and time advance notice of which shall be given to the Chairman and Members of the Board at least ten days before the scheduled meeting and it shall accompany the complete agenda papers i.e. the note of the Superintendent of Jail recommendations of the Deputy Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police, Chief Probation Officer and that of the Director General of Prisons alongwith the copies of documents if any.

(ii) A meeting shall ordinarily be chaired by the Chairman and if for some reasons he is unable to be present in the meeting, it shall be chaired by the Principal Secretary (Home). The Member Secretary (Director General of Prisons) shall present the case of each prisoner under consideration before the Sentence Review Board. The Board shall consider the case and take a view. As· far as practicable, the Sentence Reviewing Board shall endeavor to make unanimous recommendation.

However, in case of a dissent, the majority view shall prevail and will be deemed to be decision of the Board.

(iii) · While considering the case of premature release of a particular prisoner, the Board shall keep in view the general principles of amnesty/ remission of the sentence as laid down by the Government or by Courts as also the earlier precedents in the matter. The paramount consideration before the Sentence Review Board being the welfare of the prisoner and the society at large. The Board shall not ordinarily decline a premature release of a prisoner merely on the ground that the police have not recommended his release. The Board shall take into account the circumstances in which the offence was committed by the prisoner and whether he has the propensity and is likely to commit similar or other offence again.

(iv) Rejection of the case of a prisoner for premature release on one or more occasions by the Sentence Review Board will not be a bar for reconsideration of his case. However, the reconsideration of the case of a conv.ict already rejected shall be done only after the expiry of a period of not less than Six months from the date of last consideration of his case.

(v) The recommendation of the Sentence Review Board shall be placed before the competent authority without delay for consideration. The competent authority may either accept the recommendations of the Sentence Review Board or reject the same on grounds to be stated ·or may ask the Sentence Review Board to reconsider a particular case. The decision of the competent Authority shall communicated to the concerned prisoner and in case the. Competent authority has ordered grant of remission and ordered his premature· release, the prisoner shall be released forthwith, with or without conditions."

¶23The perusal of the said rule makes it clear that the SRB is the appropriate authority to decide the case for premature release of an inmate and the said recommendation shall be put before the competent authority.

¶24In the instant case, the material on record shows that the SRB meeting held on 23rd February, 2024 duly considered the case of the petitioner and rejected his plea for premature release vide order dated 15th October, 2024. The contents of the order dated 15th October, 2024 are as follows:- "Reference to the subject cited above, I am directed to convey that the Sentence Reviewing Board in its meeting held on 23rd February 2024, considered the cases of 92 convicts for premature release. Out of Ninety Two (92) cases, Fourteen

(14) cases were recommended for premature release, Seventy Eight (78) cases were rejected by Sentence Reviewing Board

S No. Name Parentage

¶1Karan Singh Sh. Man Chand

¶2Madan Gopal Sh.Nanak Chand

¶3Nain Singh Sh.Lekh Raj

¶4Ombir Sh. Lekh Raj

¶5Praveen Kumar Jain Sh. Padam Chand Jain

¶6Rahul@Puneet@ Philips Sh. Rajender

¶7Ranbir Singh @ Pehlwan Sh.Lakhi Ram

¶8Robin @ Babloo Sh. Randhir Singh

¶9Sachin@ Kapil Sh. Kasturi Lal

¶10Sanjeev Mahajan Sh. Sohan Lal

¶11Shambhu Sh. Bans Raj

¶12Shyam Lal Sh.Tara Chand

¶13Somnath @ Putli Sh.Bhikari Lal

¶14Sunil Kumar Sh. Mahender Kumar Pal

¶15Surjeet Munda Sh.Sukhram Munda

¶16Vinod Sh. Ram Nath

¶17Abhimanyu @ Shyam Sh. Babu Ram

¶18Dharmender Kumar Pal Sh.Kanoji Lal

¶19Gopi Chand @ Pappu Sh. Mange Ram

¶20Hardayal Singh Sh. Surjit Singh

¶21Narcndcr @ Pappu Sh.Puran Singh

¶22Ram Dass Sh. Ishwar Singh

¶23Rashid Mohd Akil

¶24Ravi Shankar Sh. Latoori Singh

¶25Suresh Sh.Hari Lal

¶26Arun Kumar Mishra Sh.Ram Avtar Mishra

¶27Nand Kishorc Sh.Hira Lal

¶28Kamruddin@ Kamru@ Mobile Sh.Suleman

¶29Shamshad@ Khutkan Sh.Hakim Ali

¶30Lal Bahadur Sh.Jai Ram

¶31Mahavir Prasad Sh.Dal Chand

¶32Mahindcr Kumar Sh.Ramji Lal

¶33Ashish Nandwana Lt.Sh. Ashok Nandwana

¶34Dhanvinder Singh Sh. Bakshish Singh

¶35Mohd. Farooo @ Gainda Sh. Mominuddin

¶36Jahangir @ Ekka@ Ibrahim Sh.Abdul Hakim

¶37Karan Mandal Sh.Shyam Mandal

¶38Radhey Shyam Sh. Ramdin

¶39Rakesh Sh.Shankar Lal

¶40Rajender Maurya Sh. Sri Ram Maurya

¶41Raju @ Kundan Sh. Jagdish Prasad

¶42Rohit Sh. Sohan Lal

¶43Saurabh Sharma Lt. Sh. Major Ravinder Sharma

¶44Sonu Sh. Veera

¶45Subhash Chander Sh.Hari Chand

¶46Usman Sh. Rahim Baksh

¶47Vinod@ Vinoda@ Bole Sh. Kamta Prasad @ Kamta Yadav

¶48Vipin Kumar Saluja Sh. Ramesh Kumar Saluja

¶49Amjad Ali Mughal Mohd. Anwar

¶50Ashok@ Bobby Sh. Bishan Dass

¶51Mukesh Kumar Sh. Munna Lal

¶52Navccn Ahuja Sh. Ashok Ahuja

¶53Ravinder Rana

Sh. Kanwar Lal

¶54Sant Ram @ Sadhu Ram Sh. Bhagwan Dass

¶55Mahesh Sh. Babu Lal

¶56Hansraj @ Hansa Sh. Nathu Ram

¶57Har Singh Sh. Ganesh Lal

¶58Harpreet Singh Sh. Amrik Singh

¶59Satender Singh Sh.Parmanand Singh

¶60Jitender Kumar @ Vickey Sh. Satpal Gulati

¶61Kabir Sh. Abdul Hassan Sheikh

¶62Manoj Kumar Singh Sh. Bindeshwari Singh

¶63Moti @ Mohit Sh. Dhan Bahadur

¶64Naeem @ Naimuddin Sh. Shamimuddin

¶65Pintu @ Bintu Sh.Bahadur Singh

¶66Rahul @ Budh Prakash Sh. Mahesh

¶67Raja Ram Sh. Bihari Lal

¶68Rani @ Manju Sh.Dharmender

¶69Sandeep @ Samman Sh. Azad Singh

¶70Surender Kumar Sh. Azad Singh

¶71Surjeet Singh@ Ajay @ Sanjay @ Payyu @ Suraj Sh.Suraj @ Chunni Lal

¶72Vijay Kumar @ Mannu Sh. Pritam Singh

¶73Vinod Kumar Sh.Babu Lal

¶74Virender Kumar @ Mintu Sh. Brijpal Singh

¶75Md. Badal Farazi Lt. Sh. Kolek Farazi @ Abdul Khaleque Farazi

¶76Mahesh Sharma @ Chintu Sh. Ram Swaroop

¶77Babu Lal Sh. Param Lal

¶78Irfan Badshah Sh. Abdul Jabbar

The minutes of the meeting were duly approved by the Hon'ble Lt Governor Delhi, the Competent Authority in the matter.

The convicts may be informed accordingly"

¶25Therefore, in terms of the above said order, nothing survives in the instant petition as the occasion to relief prayed by the petitioner does not arise.

¶26As per the minutes placed on record by the respondent-State, the case of the petitioner was considered by the SRB and the same was rejected and upheld by the appropriate authority.

¶27Furthermore, the minutes dated 15th October, 2024 also depicts that the petitioner is not the only convict who got rejected, rather there are 78 more convicts on the similar footing, therefore, the argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner regarding the principle of parity does not stand.

¶28Therefore, this Court is satisfied that the case of the petitioner was duly considered by the SRB and the minutes of the order dated 15th October, 2024 have been duly supplied.

¶29At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to hold that the 2004 policy merely provides for a right to the convicts for consideration for premature release, however, the same does not confer a surety of their release.

¶30At last, this Court deems it appropriate to deal with the argument advanced by the learned ASC on the aspect of non-surrender by the petitioner before the concerned authorities.

¶31It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted interim protection by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 1st October, 2024, however, the same was only granted till 21st October, 2024 and the petitioner has yet not surrendered.

¶32On the said aspect, this Court is of the view that the conduct of the petitioner is unsatisfactory and the Court directs the petitioner to surrender within three weeks from the date of passing of this order.

¶33In view thereof, the instant petition stands dismissed, along with pending applications, if any.

¶34Order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J NOVEMBER, 13 2024 NA/av/mk

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of order: 13th November, 2024 + W.P.(CRL) 3247/2024, CRL.M.A. 31356/2024, CRL.M.A. 31357/2024 & CRL.M.A. 31358/2024 VINOD ALIAS GANJA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajashekhar Rao, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sarthak Maggon, Adv. with Ms. Tanvi, Adv. and Mr. Zahid Ahmed Laiq, Adv. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH