Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Grants Premature Release to Life Convicts - Emphasizes Jail Offense Separation – P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, a recent judgment by Honorable Justice Deepak Gupta has underscored the importance of segregating jail offenses from considerations of premature release for life convicts. The judgment, delivered on September 29, 2023, serves as a landmark decision in the realm of criminal law, reaffirming the principle that the commission of jail offenses should not be grounds for withholding a life convict's right to premature release.

The judgment, while addressing the case of a life convict, examined the legal framework encompassing Sections 426 and 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Punjab Premature Release of Life Convicts Policy, 2011. Notably, the court clarified that even if a life convict is subsequently convicted for jail offenses, the subsequent sentence should run concurrently with the existing life imprisonment.

Justice Deepak Gupta's ruling drew upon past legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's stance on the matter. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and another Vs. Vijayanagaram Chinna Reddappa, the court held that a life convict's jail offenses should not affect their eligibility for premature release, especially when they have already faced legal consequences for those offenses.

The judgment further cited cases such as Subhash Vs. State of Haryana (1994), Brahma Nand Vs. State of Haryana and others (2015), Raj Kumar Vs. State of Punjab (2006), and Kamal Kant Tiwari Vs. State of Punjab and others (2014), which all support the idea that jail offenses committed by life convicts should not hinder their prospects of early release.

Justice Gupta's ruling concluded that, considering the petitioner had already served more than double the minimum sentence required under the 2011 policy, she should be granted premature release. The judgment directed the authorities to evaluate her case in line with the policy and allowed her interim bail until a final decision is reached.

Crucially, the judgment emphasized that its decision was subject to the outcome of the petitioner's pending appeal. If the appellate court deems that the petitioner should serve life imprisonment until natural death, she must surrender accordingly.

 

Date of Decision: 29.09.2023

Ravdeep Kaur vs State of Punjab & Ors.       

Latest Legal News