New Delhi :
The Supreme Court has made an important comment on the premature release of the culprits. The SC has said, “It is the job of the government to give premature release to a convict. The matter of premature release comes under the policy of the government. Along with this, the Supreme Court has fixed the life sentence in the murder case in Gujarat.” refused to pass order in the case of premature release, however, directed the Gujarat government to consider the petitioner’s request for premature release. The Supreme Court held that premature The release will be considered. The court directed the Gujarat government to consider according to the 1992 policy.
read this also
Significantly, a petition is pending in the Supreme Court against the premature release of Bilkis Bano’s convicts. Those convicts were released last year by the Gujarat government on the policy of July 9, 1992. After this it was challenged by Bilkis Bano and others in the Supreme Court. On Monday, the decision of the bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JB Pardiwala has come in the case of Hitesh convicted of murder in Gujarat. The plea for premature release of a life convict in a murder case has been rejected.
The bench said in its decision, “We are of the considered view that having regard to the circumstances, it deserves to be reconsidered by the State. Since grant of premature release is an executive action, the matter is fit for reconsideration by the State Government.” We direct the competent authority to consider the request for premature release by the State Government, which has been mentioned above and the policy which will be applicable here is the 1992 policy.”
this is the case
In fact, the petitioner Hitesh was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1992. His appeal against the sentence was dismissed in October 2009. Subsequently, a co-accused was given premature release in 2017. After which the petitioner also demanded the same. The special thing is that the committee constituted by the government in 2020 also told the behavior of the culprit to be good and said that he will not commit crimes now. Along with this, he also said that he had once saved him from being jailed. The petitioner submitted that he had served the original sentence of 15.6 years and it went up to 19 years with remission.
This was the main objection regarding premature release
In the affidavit filed by the State, the main objection to premature release was that when the petitioner was released on interim bail for three weeks in 2005, he remained absconding for 5 years, till he was arrested again in 2010. Not done. The court noted that the petitioner was deprived of four furloughs as a punishment for his conduct. A 1992 state policy allows premature release after serving a sentence of 14 years. The application for premature release by the petitioner should be reconsidered by the State. Following the law laid down by this court, the determination of premature release is under state policy. On the other hand, Rishi Malhotra, appearing on behalf of the convict, said that the convict should be given premature release. He was absconding for five years after getting bail but has been in jail since 2010. The committee has recommended in his favor. He had also saved from getting jail break.
read this also-
Featured Video Of The Day
#BudgetBasics: Some words you should know