Bombay High Court | Sentence Review Board’s Rejection of Premature Release Set Aside | Rule 403 Goa Prison Rules Mandates Consideration of Reformation, Conduct and Resettlement Factors
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Bombay at Goa Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta directed the Sentence Review Board to reconsider the application for premature release of a life convict afresh. The Bench set aside the earlier decision of the Board which had rejected the request for release. The Court held that the Board had failed to apply the statutory parameters prescribed under the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006, and directed that the case be placed for consideration at the next meeting of the Board without the embargo of the earlier rejection. The Court allowed the petition and issued directions that the reconsideration must take into account relevant statutory and judicially laid down factors.
The petitioner, a convict undergoing sentence at the Central Jail, Colvale, Bardez, Goa, had approached the High Court through a criminal writ petition seeking directions to release him in accordance with the Goa Prisons Rules, 2021. The petition also sought setting aside of the deliberations and decision of the Sentence Review Board dated 04 December 2024, which had refused his application for premature release.
The petitioner was convicted along with co-accused persons by the Children’s Court for the State of Goa, Panaji, in Special Case No. 28 of 2006. The conviction dated 23 June 2014 pertained to offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 302, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8(2) of the Goa Children Act, 2003. The judgment of conviction was confirmed by the High Court on 04 March 2019.
According to the materials placed before the Court, the petitioner had completed 18 years, 10 months, and 19 days of imprisonment including remission. During incarceration, he pursued various academic and skill development programmes including an Advanced Computer Applications course, active participation in the art exhibition titled “Beyond Barriers” organized by the Inspector General of Prisons, and training in Entrepreneurship Development organized by the Goa Chamber of Commerce and Industry. He had also completed the first and second years of a Bachelor of Tourism Studies programme through Indira Gandhi National Open University. Further, he undertook work assignments in the jail including the jail canteen, carpentry section, garden section, and handicraft section.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the Board failed to consider the factors mandated under Rule 403 of the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006. It was submitted that the Board’s decision was arbitrary and mechanical, based solely on the gravity of the offence, and ignored favourable reports from the District Magistrate, North Goa, and the Probation Officer. It was also argued that the Superintendent of Jail had reported satisfactory behaviour, cordial relations with inmates, and recommended premature release. However, the Inspector General of Prisons had not recommended release, which was relied upon by the Board to reject the request. The Board noted the petitioner’s involvement in the criminal conspiracy for kidnapping, ransom demands, torture, and killing of the victim, and refused premature release, directing reconsideration after one year.
The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioner’s case did not fall within the new guidelines framed under the Goa Prisons Rules, 2021, as his conviction was prior to their coming into force. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1245), which laid down factors such as whether the offence affects society, probability of crime being repeated, potential of the convict to commit crimes, purpose served by continued imprisonment, and socio-economic conditions of the convict’s family. The State argued that though the Board’s order was not happily worded, the gravity of the offence warranted rejection of the application.
The Court perused the deliberations of the Sentence Review Board dated 04 December 2024. It noted that while the Rules of 2021 were referred, the petitioner’s case was squarely governed by the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006, since his conviction was dated 23 June 2014. The Bench recorded: “From the reading of the deliberations, it is evident that as far as the petitioner is concerned, the Goa Prisons Rules, 2021, has no role to play since the conviction of the petitioner is by a judgment and order dated 23.06.2014 and therefore, his case would be squarely covered by Chapter XX of the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006.”
The Court observed that the petitioner had completed 18 years, 10 months, and 19 days of imprisonment, was released on parole and furlough on 25 occasions, and no adverse reports had been recorded against him. It was also noted that the District Magistrate recommended premature release, the Superintendent of Jail reported satisfactory conduct and work, and the Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour had assessed him with “relatively good stress tolerance, efficient coping mechanism, with satisfactory level of emotional maturity.”
However, the Superintendent of Police, North Goa, had not recommended release and the father of the victim had objected to any premature release. The Court recorded that the Board referred to the aggravating circumstances noted by the Children’s Court including torture of the minor victim, his brutal killing, and disposal of the body to destroy evidence. The Board refused release and deferred the case.
The Court observed: “The Board has failed to take into consideration the recommendation of the Superintendent of Jail, which show his reformed behaviour as well as the report of the IPHB.” It was further recorded that the Board appeared to be influenced by objections raised by the victim’s father.
The Bench also referred to observations of the Children’s Court at the stage of sentencing: “Accused no.3 though was present at the time of committing murder of Mandar, has not taken any active part… No doubt he did not stop accused no.4 from committing murder of Mandar, there is no aggravating circumstance as far as accused no.3 is concerned to consider awarding capital punishment.”
The Court discussed the principles laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 595, which included factors of whether the offence was individual in nature, likelihood of repetition, potentiality of future crimes, purpose of continued imprisonment, and socio-economic conditions of the family. The Court also referred to Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2019) 14 SCC 114, which held that while remission is the prerogative of the executive, the power must be exercised after considering relevant factors.
The Court ultimately recorded: “The executive power cannot be exercised arbitrarily and the decision to grant remission should be informed, fair and reasonable.”
It directed: “By setting aside the conclusion reached by the Sentence Review Board on 04.12.2024 as regards the petitioner (Case No.4), we deem it appropriate to direct the Sentence Review Board to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in light of the aforesaid observations.”
“Since we have set aside the decision of rejection of the claim of the petitioner for premature release, there shall be no embargo in view of clause 3(3) of Rule 403 of the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 and we expect the Board to take up the case of the petitioner for consideration of premature release, immediately in its next meeting considering the relevant factors as mentioned in the cases of Ram Chander (supra) and Laxman Naskar (supra).”
The petition was accordingly allowed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sahil Sardessai, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Pravin Faldessai, Additional Public Prosecutor; Mr. Deepak Gaonkar, Advocate
Case Title: ABC v. STATE OF GOA & ORS.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-GOA:1615-DB
Case Number: WPCR.659 OF 2025 (F)
Bench: Justice Bharati Dangre, Justice Nivedita P. Mehta
Comment / Reply From
You May Also Like
