"Premature Release Must Align with Conviction-Era Policies, Not Newer Rules," Says Bombay High Court

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court at Goa has directed the premature release of Pralhad K. Patil, convicted in 2000 for a murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the petitioner's application for release was wrongly evaluated under the 2021 Rules instead of the policies in effect at the time of his conviction. The bench, comprising Justices M.S. Karnik and Valmiki Menezes, held that the premature release must be considered based on earlier rules and quashed the rejection of his release by the State Government and the Additional Sessions Judge of South Goa.

Pralhad K. Patil was convicted on September 26, 2000, for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. In 2013, Patil’s brothers were released prematurely, but his own release was repeatedly denied despite favorable recommendations from authorities such as the Probation Officer and the Inspector General of Prisons. The Sentence Review Board, considering Patil's overall good conduct in prison and his family’s willingness to reintegrate him, unanimously recommended his premature release in 2023. However, the Sessions Court and the State Government rejected this proposal based on a new legal framework under the 2021 Goa Prison Rules, particularly Rule 1245 and its guidelines, which set higher thresholds for release.

The High Court held that the application for Patil’s release should have been assessed under the legal policies existing at the time of his conviction, not the newer 2021 Goa Prison Rules. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sharafat Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022), the court reaffirmed that legal evaluations like premature release must be aligned with policies active during the period of conviction. “The petitioner's premature release has to be considered on the basis of the policy as it stood on the date when the petitioner was convicted,” the court remarked.

The State's refusal was primarily based on the petitioner’s absconding from parole for five years between 2005 and 2010. The District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police argued that including this period in Patil's remission calculation was inappropriate, reducing the actual time he had served to around 18 years, short of the required 22 to 24 years under the current guidelines. However, the court found that Patil had already served over 23 years, including remission, when assessed correctly under the older rules. The court observed, “We find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in giving an adverse report on the basis of the 2021 Rules.”

The court emphasized that beyond the severity of the crime, factors such as reformative behavior, conduct during incarceration, and the convict's post-parole conduct must also be weighed. Despite absconding during parole earlier, Patil’s behavior in prison was exemplary, and he had been released on furlough or parole without incident multiple times since 2010. The Sentence Review Board and prison authorities had supported his release based on these factors.

The court concluded that “the seriousness of the offence...cannot be the sole consideration,” and that a holistic approach considering the convict’s rehabilitation was necessary. The rejection of the release by the Sessions Court was deemed inappropriate as it did not consider the reformative aspects and the policy existing at the time of conviction.

Relying on earlier Supreme Court judgments, the court reiterated that changes in law or policy post-conviction cannot retroactively affect a prisoner’s rights. It pointed to decisions in State of Haryana v. Jagdish and State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar to support its view that retrospective application of new guidelines was impermissible.

The Bombay High Court’s decision underscores the importance of evaluating cases of premature release based on the legal framework existing at the time of conviction, rather than applying subsequent stricter guidelines. This ruling reaffirms the rehabilitative focus of the justice system, where reformative conduct plays a critical role in determining a convict's early release. By directing the Goa government to expedite Patil’s release, the judgment also highlights the importance of fairness in applying sentence review guidelines.

Date of Decision: 19th August 2024