Taking cognizance of the fact of inordinate delay in deciding premature release cases, the Punjab and Haryana High Court issued eight commandments on Monday, including the convict’s release on bail from the date it was due but the final call was not taken. The commandments would apply to all convicts undergoing sentences in the district/central jails in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh.

The directions by Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan were issued on seven contempt petitions “to put reverse burden” on the governments to decide premature release matters within three to six months in accordance with their own policy/instructions. Justice Sangwan asserted that the issue involved was disobedience and violation of the high court’s directions to the Home Departments of Haryana, Punjab and Chandigarh to take a final decision within a time-bound manner. 

The Court held that “Despite the lapse of years, the final decision is not taken and such convicts are languishing in jail, though, at a later stage, if they are found entitled to premature release with effect from the date when the case was recommended by the superintendent of the jail/district magistrate concerned, the ultimate effect of the delayed decision on the premature release will result in unnecessary overstay by such convict, who is granted the premature release from a back date, i.e. the date when he was found eligible for premature release.”

The Court heard advocates Akshay Rana and Arvind Kumar Sharma, Justice Sangwan asserted that poor convicts in a number of cases were unable to engage a lawyer for time-bound directions for deciding premature release cases. Contempt petitions were filed following non-compliance of directions, putting a financial burden on the convicts already in long judicial custody and also resulting in their overstay.

The Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Secretary, legal services authorities, to submit a report to the High Court tri-monthly after collecting information from jail superintendents on the number of recommended cases pending approval. They would also inform the family that the convict would be released on bail on furnishing bail/ surety bonds from the date the premature release was due as per the recommendation, but a final decision/call was not taken. An undertaking would be furnished by the family that the convict would surrender to undergo further imprisonment if his premature release case was rejected.

The Court further said that his passport would remain with the local police till the final decision. In case of convicts from other states, the Chief Judicial Magistrate might in his discretion ask for an undertaking by a sarpanch, lambardar or any other permanent village resident that the person would stay at his native address and surrender, if required.

The Legal Service Authority member secretary would also maintain a record of convicts likely to apply for premature release within the next six months to provide necessary information to avoid overstaying.

The relevant data would be collected from the jail concerned and necessary compliance would be made for the convicts’ release on bail after the due date. The rejection on the grounds of heinous crime or threat to the state’s security would be ordered within time frame specified in policy to prevent bail.