Madras High Court Denies Interim Bail for Convict Prisoners Awaiting Government Decision on Premature Release

Court Affirms Government's Exclusive Authority on Sentence Suspension; Directs Cases for Premature Release to be Decided Within Three Months

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has clarified the limits of its jurisdiction in granting interim bail to convict prisoners whose applications for premature release are under consideration by the government. The Division Bench, comprising Justices N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman, pronounced that the power to suspend or remit sentences lies solely with the appropriate government and not with the court, especially after the sentencing phase is concluded.

The judgment arose from a series of writ petitions and miscellaneous petitions filed by convict prisoners seeking interim bail or extension of interim bail pending government consideration of their premature release requests. The court dismissed these petitions, emphasizing that a convict prisoner serving a sentence is not in the court's custody, and thus, the question of granting bail, including interim bail, does not arise.

The court's decision was based on the principles laid down in various judgments, notably the Supreme Court's stance that the power to grant remission or parole is a discretionary one vested with the government, and not a right that prisoners can claim from the judiciary. The Bench cited the Constitution Bench judgment in Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India to underline that bail presupposes the custody of the court, which is not the case for prisoners who have been sentenced and are serving their terms.

Additionally, the court highlighted the role of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, which govern the temporary release of prisoners. It pointed out that the government retains the authority under Rule 40 to exempt provisions of these rules to grant temporary release or suspension of sentence. Instead of directing the court to extend interim bail, the government is encouraged to exercise its powers under these rules in deserving cases.

This judgment effectively directs the government to consider and decide on the representations for premature release of prisoners within three months, ensuring that the process is not unduly delayed. The court also instructed the Registry not to entertain petitions seeking interim bail or extensions thereof when the government is yet to conclude its decision on premature release applications.

In doing so, the Madras High Court has reinforced the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive in matters concerning the remission and suspension of sentences, while also ensuring the timely consideration of prisoners' applications for premature release.

Bottom Line:

The High Court cannot grant interim bail under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to convict prisoners whose sentencing part is over and are not in the custody of the court. The power to suspend or remit sentences under Section 432 CrPC / Section 473 BNSS lies exclusively with the appropriate Government.

Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.

Zubaitha Begum v. State, (Madras)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2810916