Citing Kautilya’s Arthshastra, Delhi High Court Directs Govt To Consider Premature Release Of Life Convict Who Violated Parole Conditions

Justice Girish Kathpali also made reference to the Vth pillar edict of Delhi Topra which refers to a statement of the emperor Asoka that he had let off prisoners 25 times during a span of 26 years.

The bench observed, “There existed a conscious and consistent thought amongst ancient thinkers, aimed at reformation of criminals in order to achieve larger goal of peace in society by minimization of crime and criminogenic tendencies. Later, thinkers across globe nurtured the idea that reformatory policies are more productive than deterrent and retributory approach to crime and criminal.”

The development comes in a writ petition filed by a murder convict whose premature release was declined on the grounds of gravity and perversity of the crime, jumping of parole and re-arrest in two other criminal cases and possibility of committing crime again.

The convict had suffered incarceration for more than 18 years without remission and more than 21 years with remission. He sought the benefit of policy framed by the Government of NCT of Delhi in the year 2004.

He argued that one single default of jumping parole in the year 2010 ought not to be considered now after 15 years in order to deny him liberty. He relied upon Commendation Certificates issued by jail and other authorities to contend that the same reflect his gradual reformation over the past 10 years.

At the outset, while the High Court held that every wrong deserves a consequence, it added that every consequence must have a limit “lest it became wrong in itself”.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Court observed that while the offence committed by the Petitioner was gruesome and warranted to be dealt with sternly however, “one also cannot ignore that the said crime took place way back in the year 2001…for the purposes of reformative sentencing, such long incarceration, as already suffered by the petitioner, the perversity must be visualised as faded.”

So far as jumping of parole and re-arrest in two more criminal cases is concerned, the Court held,

“Even that occurred way back in the year 2015. As mentioned above, citing this misconduct, the SRB has repeatedly denied premature release to the petitioner. Some point of time has to be there, when aftereffects of such misconduct must taper down. It has been more than a decade since the petitioner jumped parole and got involved in those two cases. After the year 2015, there is not even a whiff of any allegation of any jail misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Rather, as observed hereafter, subsequently the petitioner was awarded a number of commendations by the jail authorities. Most significantly, as discussed above, the petitioner stands acquitted in those two cases.”

As regards possibility of the petitioner committing crime again, the Court said, “merely because he has not physically attained old age, it cannot be said that there are higher chances of his committing crime again. Bodily strength has no nexus with the propensity to commit crime. The propensity to commit crime has to be analysed by examining reformative ascension of the prisoner as reflected from cogent material.”

Thus, the Court ordered the State authorities to consider afresh case of the petitioner for premature release in accordance with the policy of the year 2004 within four weeks.

Appearance: Ms. Arundhati Katju, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ali Chaudhary, Ms. Shristi Borthakur and Mr. Abuzar Ali, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC for State with Mr. Sushant Bali, Ms. Avita Bhandari, Mr. Arjit Sharma and Mr. Nikunj Bindal, Advocates with Inspector Shrichand and SI Anil, PS Seemapuri for Respondent

Case title: Vikram Yadav v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Case no.: W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024

Click here to read judgment