AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. (Oral)
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief(s): -
“I . Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/ setting aside the order bearing number 822/ XX-2/2024-01(02)/ 2024 dated 14.12.2024 (Annexure No.2 page no.30-58) in so far as it pertains to this the denial of the remission/ premature release of the Petitioner (serial no. 62); II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing for release of the applicant/ Petitioner by granting him the benefit of remission in relation to Session Trial No. 128/ 2010 (arising out of FIR No. 108/ 2010 under Section 302, 201 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, PS Haldwani, District Nainital); III. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the State level committee to recommend the release of the Petitioner on remission/ premature release in relation to Session Trial No. 128/2010; IV. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the Respondent to reconsider the case of the Petitioner for remission in relation to Session Trial No. 128/2010 (arising out of FIR No. 108/2010 under Section 302, 201 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, PS Haldwani, District Nainital), decided by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Nainital, on 22.07.2013, and pass appropriate orders in time bound manner.”
It is not in dispute that petitioner was tried in Sessions Trial No.128 of 2010 (State v. Nitin Parmar) for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC, wherefor he was convicted by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital vide judgment dated 22.07.2013 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appeal filed by petitioner, being Criminal Appeal No.476 of 2013 (Nitin Parmar v. State of Uttarakhand) challenging his conviction and sentence, was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated January 02, 2014. Even Special Leave Petition No.9708 of 2014 preferred by petitioner was also dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 03.08.2016.
Upon completing incarceration of 14 years, petitioner applied for premature release in terms of Chapter-XXI of Uttarakhand Jail Manual, 2024 which deals with the issue of premature release. Petitioner’s request for premature release was turned down by the State Government vide order dated 14.12.2024 by holding that petitioner was having illicit relations with several women due to which petitioner’s wife had objected to, and in the meantime, petitioner brought one woman to his house in presence of his wife, due to which the dispute arose and petitioner murdered his wife. While rejecting petitioner’s request for premature release, it was also observed that the offence committed by petitioner is heinous and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for premature release.
After first rejection, petitioner again applied for premature release, and this time also, his request was turned down by the State Government vide order dated 05.08.2025 only on the ground that the offence committed by petitioner is heinous in nature which may have wide impact on the society at large.
In this writ petition, petitioner has only challenged the order dated 14.12.2024 whereby his first request for premature release was rejected. The subsequent order, passed on his second request, is actually brought on record by State along with the supplementary counter affidavit filed by In-charge Superintendent, District Jail, Nainital who is the Nodal Officer on behalf of respondent no.2-Inspector General of Prisons, Uttarakhand, Dehradun.
The reason(s) indicated for turning down petitioner’s request cannot sustain in the eyes of law in view of a recent judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ‘Rohit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttarakhand and others´ reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 865. For the sake of convenience, Paragraph Nos.7 and 7.1 of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow: -
“7.Reverting to the present case, the faint ground invoked by the respondent-Union of India in support of rejection of the petitioner's plea for premature release is that the crime committed by the petitioner was a heinous one. We wish to make it clear that in a constitutional polity governed by the rule of law, the denial of remission cannot rest solely on the ground of heinousness of the crime. As we have already stated above, remission is not an extension of the sentencing process, but a distinct executive function concerned with the present and future, namely, the prisoner's conduct, evidence of reformation, and prospects of reintegration into society. To predicate its denial only on the heinous nature of the offence is to collapse this distinction and to reconvert remission into a retrospective reaffirmation of guilt, which the criminal justice system has already adjudicated upon. The gravity and heinousness of the offence stand exhausted at the stage of sentencing and the judicial determination of punishment necessarily incorporates these considerations. A criminal justice system that refuses to look beyond the gravity of the offence to the offender's transformation will betray its reformative ideal particularly at the remission stage. Justice does not permit permanent incarceration of an individual in the shadow of their worst act.
7.1.The nature of the offence cannot, therefore, be the sole ground for denying remission. Emotive retribution is a course, incompatible with constitutional values. The decision on remission must emerge from a holistic assessment of the prisoner and after balancing societal interests with the prisoner's right to be considered for release on fair and reasonable criteria.”
In both the orders passed by State Government while rejecting the request of petitioner seeking premature release, the only ground taken is that the offence committed by petitioner was heinous in nature. In our considered opinion, gravity or heinousness of an offence cannot be the sole ground for rejecting prayer of premature release.
Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that upon completion of 14 years’ incarceration, one becomes eligible to be considered for premature release as per the policy applicable in the State of Uttarakhand. He further submits that petitioner is under incarceration since 11.03.2010 and he has undergone confinement of more than 16 years.
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State of Uttarakhand, concedes that petitioner has undergone sentence of 16 years, and he is eligible to be considered for premature release.
Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that as per the policy formulated by State of Uttarakhand, offence committed by petitioner does not fall within the prohibited category, therefore, his request could not have been turned down merely by observing that his offence is of heinous category.
Having perused the orders of rejection passed by the State Government, we do not approve the manner in which petitioner’s request was dealt with by the State Government. The ground taken by the State is de hors the policy applicable on the subject. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohit Chaturvedi (Supra), gravity or heinousness of offence alone cannot constitute a sole ground for denial of remission/premature release.
In such view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. Orders dated 14.12.2024 and 05.08.2025 passed by the State Government are set aside. The matter is remitted to the State Level Committee, constituted for that purpose, to re-consider petitioner’s request for remission/ premature release, in accordance with law, within six weeks from today.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.