Error in Calculating Incarceration Period Leads to Re-evaluation of Premature Release Plea
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the decision of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, which denied the premature release of Ram Pratap Singh, a convict serving a seven-year sentence under Section 307/34 IPC. The court found an apparent error in the calculation of Singh's incarceration period, which led to an unsustainable decision by the Governor. The matter has now been remitted for fresh consideration by the state government.
The division bench, comprising Justices J.J. Munir and Tarun Saxena, addressed the Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17372 of 2025, highlighting that the exercise of power under Article 161 of the Constitution must adhere to established rules and policies. The judgment emphasized that the denial of Singh's premature release was based on incorrect data, citing that Singh had served 4 years, 6 months, and 6 days without remission, contrary to the recorded 2 years and 6 days. This miscalculation was deemed a manifest illegality and a non-application of mind.
The court observed that the eligibility criteria under Rule 4(iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Rules, 1938, were not appropriately considered. Singh, having served more than one-third of his sentence, met the conditions for premature release, yet the recommendation reports from the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, which lacked sufficient reasoning, were inappropriately weighed in the decision.
Counsel for the petitioner, Syed Mohammed Jafer Husain, argued that the Governor's order failed to consider the satisfactory conduct of Singh and the medical ailments he suffered from. The court concurred, noting the absence of adverse material against Singh and the lack of a substantive basis for the adverse decision.
The court directed the state government to re-evaluate Singh's plea for premature release within one month, ensuring adherence to the correct facts and applicable legal standards. This decision underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding procedural correctness in the exercise of executive powers.
Bottom Line:
The exercise of power under Article 161 of the Constitution by the Governor must not be arbitrary and is subject to rules and remission policies. Any error apparent on record, such as miscalculation of the period of incarceration, renders the decision unsustainable.
Statutory provision(s): Article 161 of the Constitution of India, Uttar Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Rules, 1938 Rule 4(iii)
Ram Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2961242
