On January 24, a three-judge Supreme Court comprised of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala ruled that the State government's policy in effect on the date of the conviction must be taken into consideration when determining whether a convict is eligible for early release.

Reiterating its conclusion, the bench said:

"In determining the entitlement of a convict to premature release, the policy of the state government on the date of the conviction would have to be the determinative factor. However, if the policy which was prevalent on the date of the conviction is subsequently liberalized to provide for more beneficial terms, the same should also be borne into mind."

The court determined that since the petitioner had been detained since July 9, 1992, the 1992 policy would be applicable, under which Gujarat's government established guidelines for the early release of those who had been found guilty and given life sentences on or after December 18, 1978, after serving 14 years of their actual sentences, provided their behavior had been satisfactory.

According to the facts, on September 19, 2020, the jail advisory board suggested the petitioner be released early due to his good and pleasant behavior in the jail, his participation in skill development training, and his role in preventing a jailbreak by some inmates. Additionally, the welfare officer came to the judgment that the petitioner will not commit any crimes in the future. The petitioner was implicated in a murder case involving a money dispute, so the petition for premature release was denied by the state government on the grounds that it would not be in the best interests of society to free him.

The bench added the following: 

1. The state government's policy dated 9 July 1992, in effect at the time of the conviction, makes it easier to consider a life convict's request for an early release after serving 14 years of the actual sentence; 

2. The petitioner served a total of 15.6 years in jail (19 years with remission); 

3. In 2017, the co-accused was granted an early release; 

4. Despite a favorable report from the jail advisory board, the petitioner has not been released; 

As a result, CJI DY Chandrachud declared the following while dictating the order:

"There is no reason why the petitioner should not be considered on the same basis as the co-accused. We are of the considered view that the state government shall freshly consider the application. Since the grant of premature release is an executive function related to Article 162 of the Constitution, we are of the view that it is appropriate for the government to re-evaluate the matter by bearing in mind all the relevant circumstances which have been noted. There is merit in the submission of the petitioner that the fact that the petitioner was involved in a murder involving money dispute is held to be a ground for the rejection of the application of premature release. This would effectively debar him from seeking premature release at any time in the future...After duly applying its mind to all the relevant facts and circumstances, application shall be considered in accordance with the policy of 1992."

The case included a man who received a life sentence after being found guilty of murder in 2002. He was given a three-week temporary bail while his High Court trial was still pending. The petitioner, however, fled in January 2005 and was subsequently apprehended on March 30, 2010. On August 9, 2011, the petitioner was penalized by losing four furloughs. The petitioner then made the request in 2017 when one of the co-accused was discharged too soon. According to the petitioner, his actual sentence totaled 15.6 years, and after remission, it increased to 19 years.

Case Title: Hitesh v State of Gujarat 
Citation: W.P.(Crl.) No. 467/2022