Orissa High Court
Nadu Pangi vs State Of Odisha on 26 August, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WPCRL No.81 of 2025
In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, 1950
***
Nadu Pangi,
Aged about 58 years
Son of Late Timuru Pangi,
Village: Kandhaguda,
P.O./P.S.: Mudulipada,
District: Malkangiri. … Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. State of Odisha,
Represented through its Secretary
Home Department, Lok Seva Bhawan,
Lok Seva Marg, Unit-5,
Bhubaneswar,
Odisha.
2. Joint Secretary to Government,
Law Department,
Government of Odisha
Lok Seva Bhawan
Sachivalaya Marg
Bhubaneswar, Odisha.
3. The Directorate of Prisons and
Correctional Services, Odisha
At: Heads of the Departments Building,
3rd Floor, Southern Wing, Unit-V
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 1 of 44
Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
4. The Superintendent
Circle Jail, Koraput
At/P.O./P.S./
District: Koraput. … Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the Parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra-4,
AdvocateFor the Opposite Parties : Mr. Debasish Tripathy,
Additional Government AdvocateP R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. HARISH TANDON
ANDHONOURABLE JUSTICE
MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMANDate of Hearing : 14.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 26 .08.2025
J UDGMENT
Beseeching premature release after having served twenty
years of sentence in terms of Judgment dated
15.12.2005 of the learned Ad hoc Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Malkangiri in
Criminal Trial No.5 of 2005, as confirmed by Judgment
dated 25.04.2015 of this Court in JCRLA No.37 of 2006,
the petitioner-convict has approached this Court by way
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 2 of 44
of filing this writ petition under the provisions of Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with the
following prayer(s):
“The petitioner therefore prays that this Hon‟ble Court
may graciously be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon
the opposite parties to show cause as to why a writ of
habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ/writs shall
not be issued thereby the opposite parties No.1 to 4;
i) to quash the order dated 02.06.2023 under
Annexure-1 in respect of the petitioner;
ii) to direct the opposite parties to release the petitioner
from jail custody as premature release case being
similarly standing with those who have been release
prematurely vide order dated 11.04.2025.
AND
If the opposite parties fail to show cause or insufficiently
show cause, the Rule may please be made absolute;
AND
Pass any other order/orders as this Hon‟ble Court may
deem fit and proper.
AND
For this act of your kindness, the petitioner as in duty
bound shall ever pray.”
Facts:
2. The petitioner has been lodged in the Circle Jail,
Koraput for undergoing imprisonment for life by virtue ofWPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 3 of 44
Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2005 being convicted
and sentenced by the learned Ad hoc Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Malkangiri in
Criminal Trial No.5 of 2005 (arising out of Mudulipada
Police Station Case No.2, dated 18.01.2025
corresponding to G.R. Case No.25 of 2005 in the files of
the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Malkangiri), having stood trial for commission of offence
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short, “the IPC“).
2.1. As is stated by the petitioner, having stood trial in C.T.
No.51 of 2005 in the aforesaid referred case, after being
committed for sessions trial in connection with charge of
offence under Section 302 of the IPC on 15.12.2005,
upon conclusion of the trial, he was convicted and
punished to undergo sentence of imprisonment for life.
An appeal, registered as Jail Criminal Appeal (JCRLA)
No.37 of 2006, before this Court got dismissed vide
Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2015, as a result of
which the Judgment and Order of the learned trial Court
is confirmed.
2.2. Having served the sentence for twenty years, the
petitioner was released on furlough in the year 2021 and
surrendered himself as directed by this Court.
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 4 of 44
2.3. The proposal for premature release of the petitioner has
been rejected by the State Sentence Review Board
(SSRB) on 02.06.2023. Questioning the propriety and
sanctity of such decision of rejecting the proposal for
premature release by the SSRB, this instant petition is
filed craving indulgence of this Court.
Hearing:
3. Heard Sri Satya Narayan Mishra-4, learned Advocate for
the petitioner and Sri Debasish Tripathy, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the opposite parties.
Submissions:
4. Sri Satya Narayan Mishra, learned Advocate submitted
the decision taken in the Meeting held on 02.06.2023 by
the SSRB as communicated vide Letter No.J/PR-
46/2022– 12091, dated 19.07.2023 that “the convict
committed double murder and therefore as per Para-
6(1)(a) of Odisha Gazette Notification No.1174, dated
19.04.2022″1, being bereft of reason and outcome of
non-application of mind, warrants intervention of this
Court.
4.1. Laying emphasis on the enquiry report submitted by the
Inspector In-Charge of Mudulipada Police Station vide
Letter dated 23.04.2024 addressed to the
1 “Guidelines for Premature Release, 2022”, vide Government of Odisha in Law
Department Resolution No.IV-J-12/2021/4375/L, dated 19th April, 2022.
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 5 of 44
Superintendent of Police, Malkangiri that the petitioner-
convict having attained the age of 62 years lost potential
to commit offence and while on furlough he stayed with
his children in his house at village Kandhaguda and got
himself engaged in cultivation work, the learned counsel
submitted that the Additional District Magistrate
(Judicial Section), Malkangiri has been apprised of such
fact by the Superintendent of Police by communicating
such enquiry report enclosed to Letter dated 26.04.2024.
It is important to note the fact stated in the said enquiry
report that neither the family members nor the family
members of in-laws or the villagers raised any objection
for the release of the petitioner. It is also stated in the
enquiry report that “he was released on furlough, but
there was no incident during that period”. Taking all
these aspects, the Collector, Malkangiri, in Letter dated
30.05.2024 addressed to the Senior Superintendent of
Circle Jail, Koraput, recommended the case of the
petitioner-“life convict No.6160/A, Nadu Pangi, son of
Late Timuru Pangi of Village Kandhaguda, Mudulipada
Police Station under Malkangiri District” for
consideration favourably for premature release.
4.2. Referring to illustrative cases where similarly
circumstanced life convicts have been allowed to be
released prematurely invoking provisions of Section 432
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 473 of
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 6 of 44
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sri
Satya Narayan Mishra, learned Advocate urged that the
case of the petitioner is liable to be considered afresh as
at the time of holding 43rd Meeting by SSRB there was
no occasion for the Board to consider the subsequent
developments.
5. Sri Debasish Tripathy, learned Additional Government
Advocate would submit that the reasoning stated while
rejecting the proposal for premature release of the
petitioner cannot be faulted with as the SSRB has
adhered to the terms of Para-6(1)(a) of Odisha Gazette
Notification No.1174, dated 19.04.2022. The petitioner-
convict having committed offence of double murder
under Section 302 of the IPC and undergoing the
sentence of life imprisonment has been considered aptly
by the SSRB.
Discussions:
6. Having diligently considered the arguments advanced by
the counsel for the respective parties, on perusal of the
record it is manifest that the enquiry report of the
Inspector In-Charge of Mudulipada Police Station has
been submitted to the Superintendent of Police on
23.04.2024, which was in turn forwarded to the
Additional District Magistrate (Judicial Section),
Collectorate, Malkangiri by the Superintendent of Police
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 7 of 44
on 26.04.2024 and subsequently transmission of the
same was made by the Collector and District Magistrate,
Malkangiri to the Senior Superintendent of Circle Jail on
30.05.2024 with recommendation for favourable
consideration of premature release of the petitioner.
6.1. The enquiry report dated 23.04.2024 submitted by the
Inspector In-Charge of Mudulipada Police Station reveals
as follows:
“6. The convict has already been attended the age of 62
years. He was committing murder to his wife and
father-in-law due to family dispute. His children‟s
are staying in the house of the convict at village
Kandhaguda by doing cultivation work. In the year
2021 the convict was on furlough release and during
this period he was staying with his children in his
house at village Kandhaguda.
***
Compliance of guidelines of Para 8V are follows:-
1. The crime was committed due to family dispute
between the convict with his wife and father-in-
law.
2. There was less chance of future occurrence of
committing the crime.
3. The convict is attained the age of 62 years and
may lost potentially in any crime.
4. No.
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 8 of 44
5. The family members of convict have 04
daughters namely (1). Hiramani Pangi (32),
W/O. Bidyadhar Khilla, (Married), (02). Malati
Pangi (28), W/O. Jagannath Saunta (Married),
(03). Padma Pangi (25), D/O. Nadu Pangi
(Unmarried), (04) Gudi Pangi, D/O. Nadu Pangi
(Unmarried) and one son namely Bhimal Pangi
(22). Two daughter have already been married,
rest two daughters and one son are staying in
the house of convict at village Kandhaguda.
They all are maintaining their lively hood by
doing cultivation work.
Further, during my enquiry it came to light that
any of the villagers or his family members are
not protesting on the release of the convict
Nadu Pangi. As per the enquiry and statement
of the villagers along with the family members
of the deceased, after his release, he will stay
in his own house with their children at village
Kandhaguda. During enquiry there is no
objection came to notice on the release of
convict Nadu Pangi from any of the villagers
and relatives of the deceased.”
6.2. The Superintendent of Police vide Letter dated
26.04.2024 addressed to the Additional District
Magistrate, (Judicial Section), Collectorate, Malkangiri
has submitted his views, which reads as under:
“During enquiry it came to light that any of the villagers or
his family members are not protesting on the release of
the convict Nadu Pangi. As per the enquiry and statement
of the villagers along with the family members of the
deceased, after his release, he will stay in his own house
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 9 of 44
with their children at village Kandhaguda. During enquiry
there is no objection came to notice on the release of
convict-6160/A Nadu Pangi (62) S/O. Late Timuru Pangi
or Village: Kandhaguda, P.S.: Mudulipada, District:
Malkangiri from any of the villager and relatives of the
deceased. A copy of enquiry report is enclosed here with
for your kind perusal.”
6.3. Stemming on aforesaid documents, the Collector and
District Magistrate, Malkangiri recommended the case of
the petitioner for premature release vide Letter dated
30.05.2024 addressed to the Senior Superintendent of
Circle Jail, Koraput.
6.4. While undertaking the exercise of considering the
proposal for premature release of the petitioner in 43 rd
Meeting by SSRB held 02.06.2023, it is obvious that
such reports and recommendation referred to above
were not available on record. The petitioner is, therefore,
entitled for reconsideration by the SSRB with reference
to reports and recommendations.
7. Having regard to the provisions of Section 473 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short,
“the BNSS, 2023”), there is no ambiguity that
appropriate State Government is empowered to remit
whole or any part of the punishment to which a person
has been sentenced at any time.
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 10 of 44
7.1. It is understood from the tenor of the Letter dated
19.07.2023 (Annexure-1) wherein the decision of SSRB
dated 02.06.2023 declining proposal for premature
release of the petitioner was communicated that fresh
consideration can be taken up by the SSRB after one
year from date of rejection. The relevant text of said
letter reads as under:
“In inviting a reference to the above subject, I am directed
to enclose herewith a list of convicts vide Annexure-A
whose premature release proposals were rejected by the
State Sentence Review Board in its 43rd meeting held on
02.06.2023 on the ground as mentioned against each.
The rejected cases are required to be placed before
the State Sentence Review Board for
reconsideration only after expiry of a period one
year from the date of last rejection as per para-8(4)
of Odisha Gazette Notification No.1174, dated
19.04.2022.
You are therefore requested to submit necessary proposal
with fresh opinion of the District Authorities,
Comprehensive note as well as calculation sheet well in
advance to this Directorate for reconsideration.”
7.2. The counsel for the petitioner has brought to notice of
this Court that the Rule 836 of the Odisha Model Jail
Manual, 2020 laying down the guidelines for premature
release of life convicts that:
“836. Premature Release of Prisoners.–
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 11 of 44
(1) The primary objective underlying premature release
is reformation of offenders and their rehabilitation
and integration into the society, while at the same
time ensuring the protection of society from criminal
activities and these two aspects are closely
interlinked and are incidental to the same is the
conduct, behaviour and performance of prisoners
while in prison.
(2) These have a bearing on their rehabilitative potential
and the possibility of their being released by virtue
of remission earned by them, or by an order granting
them premature release.
(3) The most important consideration for pre-mature
release of prisoners is that they have become
harmless and useful member of a civilized society
and for the purpose of recommending the pre-mature
release of prisoners in state a Sentence Review
Board should be set up to advise the Government.
(4) The Government of Odisha in Law Department in his
Resolution No.4817/IVJ.7/08 (pt), dated 05.05.2010
(Appendix-7) has issued guidelines to constitute
State Sentence Review Board in the State of Odisha
to review sentences awarded to the Prisoner and to
recommend pre-mature release by the Board and
this resolution shall remain in force unless and until
the Government of Odisha made its amendment.
(5) Premature release of prisoners can be classified into
four types.–
(a) By way of commutation of sentence of life
convict and other convict under Section 433 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the
State Government.
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 12 of 44
(b) By way of remitting term sentence of a prisoner
under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 by the State Government.
(c) By order of the Governor of the State passed
exercising power under Article 72 or Article 161
of the Constitution of India, as the case may
be, the State shall constitute a committee for
recommending appropriate case before His
Excellency the Governor for release on mercy.
(See Appendix-8)
(d) Premature release under any special law
enacted by the State or Central Government
providing for release on probation of good
conduct prisoners after they have served a part
of the sentence.
(6) No guidelines need to be prescribed here for
premature release of convicts falling under clause (b)
to (d) of sub-rule (5) of Rule 836, because the
relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
1973, the Constitution of India and the special
legislation of the State or Center are to be followed
and for premature release of convicts falling under
clause (a) Sub-rule (5) of Rule 836, guidelines or
policies for premature release of life convicts as
prescribed in this chapter may be followed.”
7.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner for considering the
case of petitioner referred to Letter No.233/10/97-
98(FC), dated 26.09.2003 issued by the National Human
Rights Commission (Law Division-IV), which indicates as
follows:
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 13 of 44
“Eligibility for premature release.–
Every convicted prisoner whether male or female
undergoing sentence of life imprisonment and covered by
the provisions of Section 433A Cr.P.C. shall be eligible to
be considered for premature release from the prison
immediately after serving out the sentence of 14 years of
actual imprisonment i.e. without the remissions. It is,
however clarified that completion of 14 years in prison by
itself would not entitle a convict to automatic release from
the prison and the Sentence Review Board shall have the
discretion to release a convict, at an appropriate time in
all cases considering the circumstances in which the
crime was committed and other relevant factors like;
a) whether the convict has lost his potential for
committing crime considering his overall conduct in
jail during the 14 year‟s incarceration;
b) the possibility of reclaiming the convict as a useful
member of the society; and
(c) Socio-economic condition of the convict‟s family.”
7.4. Reference has been made to the illuminating judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the
case of Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan Vrs. State of (NCT of
Delhi) and others, 2025 INSC 969. In the said case, it has
been observed as follows:
“14. The expression “remission” has been considered in a
number of judgments which we can discuss. This is
as opposed to the expression “parole and furlough”
etc. With reference to the decisions of this Court and
on a discussion of the expression “remission”, it
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 14 of 44
becomes clear that the said expression is used in
two nuances: firstly, when the remission of sentence
would mean a reduction in the sentence imposed on
a convict without wiping out of the conviction which
does not amount to an acquittal. On the other hand,
remissions are also granted during the course of
undergoing a sentence on the basis of the certain
legal considerations. The same can be discussed in
detail.
14.1 The principles covering grant of remission as
distinguished from concepts such as “commutation”,
“pardon”, and “reprieve” can be brought out with
reference to a judgment of this Court in State (NCT of
Delhi) Vrs. Prem Raj, (2003) 7 SCC 121 (“Prem Raj”).
Articles 72 and 161 deal with clemency powers of
the President of India and the Governor of a State
respectively, and also include the power to grant
pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of
punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the
sentences in certain cases. The power under Article
72, inter alia, extends to all cases where the
punishment or sentence is for an offence against any
law relating to a matter to which the executive power
of the Union extends and in all cases where the
sentence is a sentence of death. Article 161 states
that the Governor of a State shall have the power to
grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of
punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the
sentence of any person convicted of any offence
against any law relating to a matter to which the
executive power of the State extends. It was
observed in the said judgment that the powers
under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of
India are absolute and cannot be fettered by any
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 15 of 44
statutory provision, such as, Sections 432, 433 or
433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter, “CrPC“) or by any prison rules.
14.1.1 It was further observed in Prem Raj that a
pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power
entrusted with the execution of the laws, which
exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from
the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has
committed. It affects both the punishment prescribed
for the offence and the guilt of the offender. But
pardon has to be distinguished from “amnesty”
which is defined as a “general pardon of political
prisoners; an act of oblivion”. An amnesty would
result in the release of the convict but does not affect
disqualification incurred, if any. “Reprieve” means a
stay of execution of a sentence, a postponement of a
capital sentence. “Respite” means awarding a lesser
sentence instead of the penalty prescribed in view of
the fact that the accused has had no previous
conviction. It is tantamount to a release on probation
for good conduct under Section 360 of the CrPC. On
the other hand, remission is reduction of a sentence
without changing its character. In the case of a
remission, neither the guilt of the offender is affected
nor is the sentence of the court, except in the sense
that the person concerned does not suffer
incarceration for the entire period of the sentence,
but is relieved from serving out a part of it.
Commutation is change of a sentence to a lighter
sentence of a different kind. Section 432 of the CrPC
empowers the appropriate Government to suspend
or remit sentences.
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 16 of 44
14.2 Further, a remission of sentence does not mean
acquittal and an aggrieved party still has every right
to vindicate himself or herself. In this context,
reliance could be placed on Sarat Chandra Rabha
vs. Khagendranath Nath, AIR 1961 SC 334, wherein
a Constitution Bench of this Court, while
distinguishing between a pardon and a remission,
observed that an order of remission does not wipe
out the offence and it also does not wipe out the
conviction. All that it does is to have an effect on the
execution of the sentence; though ordinarily a
convicted person would have to serve out the full
sentence imposed by a court, he need not do so with
respect to that part of the sentence which has been
ordered to be remitted. An order of remission, thus,
does not in any way interfere with the order of the
court; it affects only the execution of the sentence
passed by the court and frees the convicted person
from his liability to undergo the full term of
imprisonment inflicted by the court even though the
order of conviction and sentence passed by the court
still stands as it is. The power to grant remission is
an executive power and cannot have the effect which
the order of an appellate or revisional court would
have of reducing the sentence passed by the trial
court and substituting in its place the reduced
sentence adjudged by the appellate or revisional
court. According to Weater’s Constitutional Law, to
cut short a sentence by an act of clemency is an
exercise of executive power which abridges the
enforcement of the judgment but does not alter it qua
the judgment. ***
14.3. Reliance could be placed on State of Haryana vs.
Mahender Singh, (2007) 13 SCC 606, to observe that
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 17 of 44
a right to be considered for remission, keeping in
view the constitutional safeguards of a convict under
Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India, must
be held to be a legal one. Such a legal right
emanates from not only the Prisons Act, 1894 but
also from the Rules framed thereunder. Although no
convict can be said to have any constitutional right
for obtaining remission in his sentence (except under
Articles 72 and 161), the policy decision itself must
be held to have conferred a right to be considered
therefor. Whether by reason of a statutory rule or
otherwise, if a policy decision has been laid down,
the persons who come within the purview thereof
are entitled to be treated equally– vide State of
Mysore Vrs. H. Srinivasmurthy, (1976) 1 SCC 817.
***
14.5. The following judgments of this Court are apposite to
the concept of remission:
14.5.1 In Maru Ram, a Constitution Bench considered
the validity of Section 433-A of the CrPC. Krishna
Iyer, J. speaking for the Bench, observed: (SCC p.
129, para 25)
“25. *** Ordinarily, where a sentence is for a
definite term, the calculus of remissions may
benefit the prisoner to instant release at the
point where the subtraction results in zero.”
14.5.2 However, when it comes to life imprisonment,
where the sentence is indeterminate and of an
uncertain duration, the result of subtraction from an
uncertain quantity is still an uncertain quantity and
release of the prisoner cannot follow except on some
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 18 of 44
fiction of quantification of a sentence of uncertain
duration.
14.5.3 Referring to Gopal Vinayak Godse, it was
observed that the said judgment is an authority for
the proposition that a sentence of imprisonment for
life is one of “imprisonment for the whole of the
remaining period of the convicted person’s natural
life”, unless the said sentence is commuted or
remitted by an appropriate authority under the
relevant provisions of law. In the aforesaid case, a
distinction was drawn between remission in
sentence and life sentence. Remission, limited in
time, helps computation but does not ipso jure
operate as release of the prisoner. But, when the
sentence awarded by the Judge is for a fixed term,
the effect of remissions may be to scale down the
term to be endured and reduce it to nil, while leaving
the factum and quantum of sentence intact.
However, when the sentence is a life sentence,
remissions, quantified in time, cannot reach a point
of zero. Since Section 433-A deals only with life
sentences, remissions cannot entitle a prisoner to
release. It was further observed that remission, in
the case of life imprisonment, ripens into a reduction
of sentence of the entire balance only when a final
release order is made. If this is not done, the
prisoner will continue to be in custody. The reason is
that life sentence is nothing less than lifelong
imprisonment and remission vests no right to release
when the sentence is of life imprisonment nor is any
vested right to remission cancelled by compulsory
fourteen years jail life as a life sentence is a
sentence for whole life.
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 19 of 44
14.5.4 Interpreting Section 433-A, it was observed
that it was a savings clause in which there are three
components. Firstly, CrPC generally governs matters
covered by it. Secondly, if a special or local law
exists covering the same area, the latter law will be
saved and will prevail, such as short sentencing
measures and remission schemes promulgated by
various States. The third component is that if there is
a specific provision to the contrary, then it would
override the special or local law. It was held that
Section 433-A of the CrPC picks out of a mass of
imprisonment cases, a specific class of life
imprisonment cases and subjects it explicitly to a
particularised treatment. Therefore, Section 433-A of
the CrPC applies in preference to any special or local
law. This is because, Section 5 of the CrPC expressly
declares that specific provision, if any, to the
contrary will prevail over any special or local law.
Therefore, Section 433-A of the CrPC would prevail
and escape exclusion of Section 5 thereof. The
Constitution Bench concluded that Section 433-A of
the CrPC is supreme over the remission rules and
short-sentencing statutes made by various States.
Section 433-A of the CrPC does not permit parole or
other related release within a span of fourteen
years.
14.5.5 It was further observed that criminology must
include victimology as a major component of its
concerns. When a murder or other grievous offence is
committed, the victims or other aggrieved persons
must receive reparation and social responsibility of
the criminal to restore the loss or heal the injury is
part of the punitive exercise although the length of
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 20 of 44
the prison term is no reparation to the crippled or
bereaved.
14.5.6 Fazal Ali, J. in his concurring judgment in Maru
Ram observed that crime is rightly described as an
act of warfare against the community touching new
depths of lawlessness. According to him, the object
of imposing a deterrent sentence is threefold. While
holding that a deterrent form of punishment may not
be the most suitable or ideal form of punishment,
yet, the fact remains that a deterrent punishment
prevents occurrence of offence. He further observed
that Section 433-A of the CrPC is actually a piece of
social legislation which by one stroke seeks to
prevent dangerous criminals from repeating offences
and on the other hand, protects the society from
harm and distress caused to innocent persons.
Therefore, he opined that where Section 433-A
applies, no question of reduction of sentence arises
at all unless the President of India or the Governor of
a State choose to exercise their wide powers under
Article 72 or Article 161 of the Constitution
respectively, which also have to be exercised
according to sound legal principles as any reduction
or modification in the deterrent punishment would,
far from reforming the criminal, be
counterproductive.
14.6 State of Haryana Vrs. Mohinder Singh, (2000) 3 SCC
394 is a case which arose under Section 432 of the
CrPC on remission of sentence in which the
difference between the terms “bail”, “furlough” and
“parole” having different connotations were
discussed. It was observed that furloughs are
variously known as temporary leaves, home visits or
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 21 of 44
temporary community release and are usually
granted when a convict is suddenly faced with a
severe family crisis such as death or grave illness in
the immediate family and often the convict/inmate is
accompanied by an officer as part of the terms of
temporary release of special leave. Parole is the
release of a prisoner temporarily for a special
purpose or completely before the expiry of the
sentence, on promise of good behaviour. Conditional
release from imprisonment is to entitle a convict to
serve remainder of his term outside the confines of
an institution on his satisfactorily complying all
terms and conditions provided in the parole order.
14.7 In Poonam Lata Vrs. M.L. Wadhawan, (1987) 3 SCC
347, it was observed that parole is a provisional
release from confinement but it is deemed to be part
of imprisonment. Release on parole is a wing of
reformative process and is expected to provide
opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into
a useful citizen. Parole is thus, a grant of partial
liberty or lessening of restrictions on a convict
prisoner but release on parole does not change the
status of the prisoner. When a prisoner is
undergoing sentence and confined in jail or is on
parole or furlough, his position is not similar to a
convict who is on bail. This is because a convict on
bail is not entitled to the benefit of the remission
system. In other words, a prisoner is not eligible for
remission of sentence during the period he is on bail
or when his sentence is temporarily suspended.
Therefore, such a prisoner who is on bail is not
entitled to get remission earned during the period he
is on bail.”
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 22 of 44
7.5. It is provided in Paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the
“Guidelines for Premature Release, 2022” as follows:
“3. Procedure to be regulated by the Board.–
(1) The Board shall meet at least once in a quarter at
Bhubaneswar on date to be notified to all the
members at least ten days in advance with complete
agenda:
Provided that it shall be open to the Chairman of the
Board to convene a meeting of the Board more
frequently as may be deemed necessary.
(2) The quorum to constitute a meeting of the Board
shall be four members including the Chairman.
(3) The recommendation of the Board shall not be
invalid merely by reason of any vacancy in the
Board or the inability of any member to attend the
Board meeting.
4. Powers and function of the Board.–
The functions of the Board shall be to review the
sentence awarded to a prisoner and to recommend
his premature release in appropriate cases.
5. Eligibility for Premature Release.–
Save as provided in these guidelines, every
convicted prisoner whether male or female
undergoing sentence of life imprisonment and
covered by the provisions of Section 433A of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as Cr.P.C.) shall be eligible to be
considered for premature release from the prison
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 23 of 44
immediately after serving out the sentence of
fourteen years of actual imprisonment i.e. without
the remissions.
Explanation.–
For the purpose of this clause, it is clarified that
upon completion of fourteen years in prison by itself
will not entitle a convict to be released automatically
from the prison and the Board shall have the
discretion to release a convict at an appropriate time
and cases considering the circumstances in which
the crime was committed and the other factors,
namely–
(a) whether the convict has lost his potential for
committing crime considering his overall
conduct in jail during the fourteen years
incarceration:
(b) the possibility of reclaiming the convict as a
useful member of the society; and
(c) Socio-economic condition of the convict‟s family.
6. Categorization of Prisoners for premature release.–
(1) Having regard to the provisions contained under
Section 433A of Cr.P.C., the National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC) opined that a reasonable
classification may be made within the category of
convicts on the basis of magnitude, brutality and
gravity of the offence for which the convict was
sentenced to life imprisonment and accordingly
certain categories of life convict prisoners other than
those mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) below may be
eligible for premature release after the completion of
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 24 of 44
twenty (20) years of imprisonment including
remission:
(a) Convicts who have been imprisoned for life for
murder in heinous cases such as murder with
rape cases, coming under the categories
undergoing imprisonment for life being
convicted under Sections 376 A, 376A B, 376
DA and 376 DB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as IPC), dacoity with
murder, murder involving an offence under the
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, murder of a
child below 14 years of age, prisoners
sentenced to life imprisonment being convicted
with the offence of aggravated penetrative
sexual assault on a child under section 6(1) of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as „POCSO‟,
Act), multiple murder, murder committed after
conviction while inside the jail, murder during
parole, murder in a terrorist incident, murder in
smuggling operation, murder of a public
servant on duty;
(b) Gangsters, contract killers, smugglers, drug
traffickers, prisoners those sentenced to life
imprisonment being convicted under Section
31A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, racketeers awarded
with life imprisonment for committing murders
as also the perpetrators of murder committed
with premeditation and with exceptional
violence or perversity;
(c) Convicts whose death sentence has been
commuted to life imprisonment;
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 25 of 44
(d) Convicts undergoing life imprisonment under
section 121 of IPC; and
(e) Such convicts of like categories as the Board
may decide:
Provided that the categories of life convicts
mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) may be placed for
consideration for premature release after completion
of twenty five (25) years of incarceration.
(2) Female convict sentenced to imprisonment for life
including those governed by section 433A of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 aged more than
sixty (60) years and have undergone an actual
imprisonment of five (5) years including remand
period and total imprisonment of six (6) years
including remission as on date shall be released
except the following, namely–
(a) Prisoners convicted and sentenced by Courts
situated outside the State of Odisha;
(b) Prisoners convicted of offences against laws
relating to a matter to which the executive
powers of the Union extends;
(c) Prisoners involved in and convicted for offences
relating to communal incidents;
(d) Life convicts who are punished for any prison
offence during the last three preceding years
and/or those who are punished for any serious
prison offence like revolt/organising revolt
against the prison administration anytime
during their entire period of stay in the prison;
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 26 of 44
(e) Prisoners who are released on parole/furlough
and who committed or attempt to commit any
of the offences punishable under any law for
the time being in force;
(f) Life convicts who have escaped from custody
during the preceding three years and have not
surrendered voluntarily;
(g) Prisoners convicted under the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955;
(h) Prisoners convicted under Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the
Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2001 and special
Acts enacted for Prevention of Terrorism and
Mafia and other organized crimes who had
been sentenced to imprisonment for life;
(i) Life convicts who have committed
offence/offences against children;
(j) Life convicts who are convicted for Kidnapping
and related offences U/s 363A, 364, 364 A,
366, 366 A, 366 B, 367, 368, 369, 372 and
Section 373 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;
(k) Life convicts convicted under sections 304B,
306, 498 A of IPC and offences under the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961;
(l) Prisoners involved and convicted for life in two
or more different murder cases;
(m) Professional killers who have been guilty of
murder being hired;
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 27 of 44
(n) Prisoners convicted under waging or attempting
to wage war, or abetting the waging of war
against the Government of India;
(o) Prisoners convicted of murder of Public
Servants while performing official duty;
(p) Prisoners sentenced to death sentence, which
is later commuted to life sentence;
(q) Prisoners convicted for life under sections 379
to 402 IPC;
(r) Prisoners who are convicted for life
imprisonment in any case with two counts or
more;
(s) Life convicts who have overstayed on
parole/furlough for more than three days in the
last preceding three years shall not be released
unless they compete ten (10) years of actual
sentence with remand period and twelve (12)
years with of remission as on date.
(3) Male convict sentenced to imprisonment for life
including those governed by section 433A of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 aged more than
sixty five (65) years and have undergone an actual
imprisonment of five (5) years including remand
period and total imprisonment of seven (7) years
including remission as on date shall be released
except the following, namely–
(a) Prisoners convicted and sentenced by courts
situated outside the State of Odisha;
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 28 of 44
(b) Prisoners convicted of offences against laws
relating to a matter to which the executive
powers of the Union extends;
(c) Prisoners involved in and convicted for offences
relating to communal incidents;
(d) Life convicts who are punished for any prison
offence during the last three (3) preceding
years and/or those who are punished for any
serious prison offence like revolt/organising
revolt against the prison administration
anytime during their entire period of stay in the
prison;
(e) Prisoners who are released on parole/furlough
and who committed or attempt to commit any
of the offences punishable under any law for
the time being in force;
(f) Life convicts who have escaped from custody
during the preceding three (3) years and have
not surrendered voluntarily;
(g) Prisoners convicted under the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955;
(h) Prisoners convicted under Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the
Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2001 and special
Acts enacted for Prevention of Terrorism and
Mafia and other organized crimes who had
been sentenced to imprisonment for life;
(i) Life convicts who have committed
offence/offences against children;
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 29 of 44
(j) Life convicts who are convicted for kidnapping
and relating offences U/s. 363A, 364, 364A,
366, 366A, 366B, 367, 368, 369, 372 and
Section 373 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;
(k) Life convicts convicted in crimes against
women under sections 376, 304B, 306, 498A
of IPC and offences under the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961;
(l) Prisoners involved and convicted for life in two
or more different murder cases;
(m) Professional killers who have been guilty of
murder being hired;
(n) Prisoners convicted under waging or attempting
to wage war, or abetting the waging of war
against the Government of India;
(o) Prisoners convicted of murder of Public
Servants while performing official duty;
(p) Prisoners sentenced to death sentence, which
is later commuted to life sentence;
(q) Prisoners convicted for life under sections 379
to 402 IPC;
(r) Prisoners who are convicted for life
imprisonment in any case with two counts or
more;
(s) Life convicts who have overstayed on
parole/furlough for more than three days in the
last preceding three years shall not be released
unless they compete ten (10) years of actualWPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 30 of 44
sentence with remand period and twelve (12)
years with of remission as on date.
(4) All other convicted male prisoners not covered by
section 433A of the Cr.P.C. undergoing the sentence
of life imprisonment shall be eligible to be considered
for premature release after they have served at least
fourteen (14) years of imprisonment inclusive of
remission but only after completion of ten (10) years
of actual imprisonment i.e. without remissions:
Provided that in the case of following categories of
cases, the convicts who have served at least twelve
(12) years of imprisonment may be considered for
premature release namely–
(a) penetrative sexual assault under Section 4(1) of
the POCSO Act, 2012;
(b) Penetrative sexual assault on a child below
sixteen years of age;
(c) Cases of Gang rape on a woman below sixteen
years of age punishable under Section 376 DA
of the IPC;
(d) Cases of Gang rape on a woman by one or
more persons constituting a group or acting in
furtherance of a common intention;
(e) Cases of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by
use of acid or acid attack;
(f) Cases of “counterfeiting currency-notes or
bank-notes” where punishment can extend to
imprisonment for life under section 489A of the
IPC;
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 31 of 44
(g) Using as genuine, forged or counterfeiting
currency-notes or bank-notes where
punishment can extend to imprisonment for life
under section 489 B of the IPC;
(h) Making or possessing instruments or materials
for forging or counterfeiting currency-notes or
bank-notes where punishment can extend to
imprisonment for life under section 489-D of the
IPC; and
(i) Cases of „Offence against the State under
Chapter VI of the IPC such as under section
121 A, section 122, section 124A (Sedition),
section 125, section 128 and section 130 of the
IPC wherein the punishment prescribed can
extend to imprisonment for life amongst other
shorter terms.
(5) The female prisoners not covered by section 433A of
the Cr.P.C. undergoing the sentence of imprisonment
would be entitled to be considered for premature
release after they have served at least ten (10) years
of imprisonment inclusive of remissions but only
after completion of seven (7) years actual
imprisonment without remissions.
(6) Cases of premature release of prisoner undergoing
life imprisonment before completion of fourteen (14)
years of actual imprisonment on the ground of
terminal illness etc. can be dealt with under the
provisions of Article 161 of the Constitution of India.”
7.6. For consideration of the premature release of the
petitioner, the factors discussed hitherto may require to
be kept in view by the SSRB.
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 32 of 44
8. It may be of significance to discuss with regard to the
applicable policy or the Resolution for consideration of
premature release of the convict.
8.1. The Government of Odisha in Law Department vide
Resolution dated 26th September, 2000 adopted a policy
to streamline the uniform standard and the criteria for
determining the eligibility of the prisoners undergoing
life sentence for their premature release. The significant
feature of the said policy can be seen from the stand of
the State Government to constitute a State Sentence
Review Board as recommended by the National Human
Rights Commission to review the sentence awarded to
the prisoners and to recommend his premature release.
The said policy contains an exhaustive provision
including the eligibility for premature release and
ineligibility in this regard in Paragraphs-3 and 4 thereof.
The paragraph-4 of the said policy dated 26th September,
2000 broadly engulfed within itself the convicts who are
kept outside the purview of the said policy which
undeniably includes the convicted prisoners of the
offence such as rape, dacoity, the terrorist crime etc.
8.2. The said policy though not directly under the guidelines
of the National Human Rights Commission, but the said
Commission while considering the aspect of humanity
and the disparity in the policies adopted by the States
across the country recommended for modification of
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 33 of 44
paragraphs-3 and 4 of the Guidelines which in all such
policies contained the provision relating to eligibility and
ineligibility of a convict for premature release. The
Human Rights Commission made recommendation to all
the States in its letter dated 26th September, 2003 so
that the aforementioned paragraphs can be modified
and/or revisited by the respective States. The
recommendation is given hereunder:
“3. Eligibility for premature release
3.1. Every convicted prisoner whether male or female
undergoing sentence of life imprisonment and
covered by the provisions of Section 433A Cr.PC
shall be eligible to be considered for premature
release from the prison immediately after serving out
the sentence of 14 years of actual imprisonment i.e.
without the remissions. It is, however, clarified that
completion of 14 years in prison by itself would not
entitle a convict to automatic release from the prison
and the Sentence Review Board shall have the
discretion to release a convict, at an appropriate time
in all cases considering the circumstances in which
the crime was committed and other relevant factors
like;
a) whether the convict has lost his potential for
committing crime considering his overall
conduct in jail during the 14 year’s
incarceration;
b) the possibility of reclaiming the convict as a
useful member of the society; andWPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 34 of 44
c) Socio-economic condition of the convict’s family.
With a view to bring about uniformity, the State/UT
Governments are, therefore, advised to prescribe the
total period of imprisonment to be undergone
including remissions, subject to a minimum of 14
years of actual imprisonment before the convict
prisoner is released. The Commission is of the view
that total period of incarceration including
remissions in such cases should ordinarily not
exceed 20 years.
Section 433A was enacted to deny premature
release before completion of 14 years of actual
incarceration to such convicts as stand convicted of
a capital offence. The Commission is of the view that
within this category a reasonable classification can
be made on the basis of the magnitude, brutality
and gravity of the offence for which the convict was
sentenced to life imprisonment. Certain categories of
convicted prisoners undergoing life sentence would
be entitled to be considered for premature release
only after undergoing imprisonment for 20 years
including remissions. The period of incarceration
inclusive of remissions even in such cases should
not exceed 25 years. Following categories are
mentioned in this connection by way of illustration
and are not to be taken as an exhaustive list of such
categories:
a) Convicts who have been imprisoned for life for
murder in heinous cases such as murder with
rape, murder with dacoity, murder involving an
offence under the Protection of Civil Rights Act
1955, murder for dowry, murder of a child
below 14 years of age, multiple murder,
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 35 of 44
murder committed after conviction while inside
the jail, murder during parole, murder in a
terrorist incident, murder in smuggling
operation, murder of a public servant on duty.
b) Gangsters, contract killers, smugglers, drug
traffickers, racketeers awarded life
imprisonment for committing murders as also
the perpetrators of murder committed with pre-
meditation and with exceptional violence or
perversity.
c) Convicts whose death sentence has been
commuted to life imprisonment.
3.2. All other convicted male prisoners not covered by
section 433A Cr.PC undergoing the sentence of life
imprisonment would be entitled to be considered for
premature release after they have served at least 14
years of imprisonment inclusive of remission but
only after completion of 10 years actual
imprisonment i.e. without remissions.
3.3. The female prisoners not covered by section 433A
Cr.PC undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment
would be entitled to be considered for premature
release after they have served at least 10 years of
imprisonment inclusive of remissions but only after
completion of 7 years actual imprisonment i.e.
without remissions.
3.4. Cases of premature release of persons undergoing
life imprisonment before completion of 14 years of
actual imprisonment on grounds of terminal illness
or old age etc. can be dealt with under the provisions
of Art. 161 of the Constitution and old paras 3.4 and
3.5 are therefore redundant and are omitted.
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 36 of 44
4. Inability for Premature Release
Deleted in view of new para 3
All the States/UTs are requested to review their
existing practice and procedure governing premature
release of life convicts and bring it in conformity with
the guidelines issued by the Commission.”
8.3. Pursuant to such recommendation of the National
Human Rights Commission, the Law Department of the
State in its Resolution dated 25th May, 2005 modified the
said policy dated 26th September, 2000 and adopted
such recommendation(s).
8.4. The effect of the recommendation by the National
Human Rights Commission being brought into effect by
this State in the policy of 2005, which was in vogue at
the time of the conviction of the petitioner, i.e., on
05.12.2005, is suggestive of the notion that the nature of
the crime cannot be a determinant factor for the purpose
of a premature release provided the convict has
undergone specified years of incarceration. However, a
further policy was adopted by the State Government as
reflected in the Resolution dated 5th May, 2010. It was
noticed in said Resolution that there are some confusion
between the policy dated 26th September, 2000 and the
amended Resolution dated 25th May, 2005. The
Guidelines in such Resolution is exhaustive and the
rigour of different parameters were lifted including the
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 37 of 44
year of sentence with an avowed object of adherence to
the right to liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The cumulative effect of the
aforesaid policy is indicative of the intent of the
Government that the persons who have undergone a
substantial period behind the bar, may be released
prematurely and therefore, such welfare scheme or a
beneficial piece of the scheme is to be kept in mind at
the time of taking a decision by an authority (say, the
SSRB) constituted under the said scheme.
8.5. There is no dissenting view as of now on the applicability
of the policy framed by the Government for premature
release to be set in motion. At the time of considering an
application for premature release filed by the convict, the
policy which was prevalent at the time of conviction shall
be the primary guiding factor for consideration of the
said application. It also does not admit of any ambiguity
that if subsequent policies are more liberal as well as
they enure to the benefit of the beneficiaries of the such
policies, the same may also be taken into consideration
or borne in mind by the SSRB.
8.6. In Joseph Vrs. State of Kerala and others, (2023) 12 SCR
505 = 2023 INSC 843, on an identical issue raised where
the Court was invited to consider the stringent
conditions imposed in the policy which kept the convict
outside the purview of such benevolent scheme, taking
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 38 of 44
into consideration the provision contained under Articles
72 and 162 of the Constitution of India relating to the
remission, commutation etc. the Supreme Court of India
held that the person might have committed a crime at
one point of time and remained incarcerated for a
considerable period of time, but he may not remain the
same person nor be tainted to remain so. The moment
the reform is perceived, there is no obstacle to consider
the prayer for premature release. The observation of the
Hon’ble Court runs as follows:
“19. A reading of the observations of this court in State of
Haryana Vrs. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216 = (2010) 3
SCR 716 [paras 35, 43] which was followed in State
of Haryana Vrs. Raj Kumar, (2021) 9 SCC 292 [para
16] makes the position of law clear: the remission
policy prevailing on the date of conviction, is to be
applied in a given case, and if a more liberal policy
exists on the day of consideration, then the latter
would apply. This approach was recently followed
by this court in Rajo Vrs. State of Bihar, Judgment
dated 25.08.2023 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.
252/2023 [para 23] as well.
***
33. Classifying– to use a better word, typecasting
convicts, through guidelines which are inflexible,
based on their crime committed in the distant past
can result in the real danger of overlooking the
reformative potential of each individual convict.
Grouping types of convicts, based on the offences
they were found to have committed, as a starting
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 39 of 44
point, may be justified. However, the prison laws in
India read with Articles 72 and 161– encapsulate a
strong underlying reformative purpose. The practical
impact of a guideline, which bars consideration of a
premature release request by a convict who has
served over 20 or 25 years, based entirely on the
nature of crime committed in the distant past, would
be to crush the life force out of such individual,
altogether. Thus, for instance, a 19 or 20 year old
individual convicted for a crime, which finds place in
the list which bars premature release, altogether,
would mean that such person would never see
freedom, and would die within the prison walls.
There is a peculiarity of continuing to imprison one
who committed a crime years earlier who might well
have changed totally since that time. This is the
condition of many people serving very long
sentences. They may have killed someone (or done
something much less serious, such as commit a
narcotic drug related offences or be serving a life
sentence for other non-violent crimes) as young
individuals and remain incarcerated 20 or more
years later. Regardless of the morality of continued
punishment, one may question its rationality. The
question is, what is achieved by continuing to
punish a person who recognises the wrongness of
what they have done, who no longer identified with
it, and who bears little resemblance to the person
they were years earlier? It is tempting to say that
they are no longer the same person. Yet, the
insistence of guidelines, obdurately, to not look
beyond the red lines drawn by it and continue in
denial to consider the real impact of prison good
behavior, and other relevant factors (to ensure that
such individual has been rid of the likelihood of
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 40 of 44
causing harm to society) results in violation of Article
14 of the Constitution. Excluding the relief of
premature release to prisoners who have served
extremely long periods of incarceration, not only
crushes their spirit, and instils despair, but signifies
society‟s resolve to be harsh and unforgiving. The
idea of rewarding, a prisoner for good conduct is
entirely negated.”
8.7. In Hitesh @ Bavko Shivshankar Dave Vrs. State of
Gujarat, (2024) 5 SCC 623, it has, in unequivocal term,
been held that the grant of premature release being an
executive function, the policy adopted should be
considered in a pragmatic manner and the application
should be considered taking into the account the policy
prevalent at the time of conviction. It is further held that
there is no absolute bar in not taking into consideration
the subsequent policy provided such policy is more
liberal enuring to the benefit of the convict in the
following:
“4. Following the law laid down by this Court, in
determining the entitlement of a convict for
premature release, the policy of the State
Government on the date of the conviction would have
to be the determinative factor. However, if the policy
which was prevalent on the date of the conviction is
subsequently liberalised to provide more beneficial
terms, those should also be borne in mind.”
8.8. The principle of law as enunciated in the above report is
restated and reiterated in Rajkumar Vrs. The State of
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 41 of 44
Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 9 SCC 598 which is to the following
effect:
“13. The State having formulated Rules and a Standing
Policy for deciding cases of premature release, it is
bound by its own formulations of law. Since there
are legal provisions which hold the field, it is not
open to the State to adopt an arbitrary yardstick for
picking up cases for premature release. It must
strictly abide by the terms of its policies bearing in
mind the fundamental principle of law that each
case for premature release has to be decided on the
basis of the legal position as it stands on the date of
the conviction subject to a more beneficial regime
being provided in terms of a subsequent policy
determination. The provisions of the law must be
applied equally to all persons. Moreover, those
provisions have to be applied efficiently and
transparently so as to obviate the grievance that the
policy is being applied unevenly to similarly
circumstanced persons. An arbitrary method
adopted by the State is liable to grave abuse and is
liable to lead to a situation where persons lacking
resources, education and awareness suffer the
most.”
8.9. The law thus enunciated in the above reported cases
uniformly laid down that an application for premature
release should be considered on the basis of a policy
prevalent at the time of the conviction. Subsequent
policies may also be borne in mind provided they are
more liberal and enure to the benefit of the convict who
has undergone a sentence of specified period provided in
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 42 of 44
the said policies. Since the decision to be taken by the
SSRB for premature release is an executive function,
such decision should be taken bearing in mind the
materials available on record or placed before the Board
and must be supported by some reasons. The SSRB has
the exclusive authority to decide whether the convict is
entitled to premature release or not. However, the such
decision must withstand on the test of reasonability,
rationality and should be devoid of arbitrariness and
untainted with bias or whimsical. Above all, it should
ensure the uniformity in the said decision.
9. From bare look at the Letter dated 19.07.2023 it does
not emanate that the proposal of the petitioner was
rejected with plausible reason. There is nothing placed
on record to suggest that the material available on
record was considered by the SSRB in its proper
perspective. The enquiry report and the
recommendations of the Collector and District
Magistrate based on view expressed by the
Superintendent of Police have come to exist after the
rejection of proposal by the SSRB. As is revealed from
the record that since 2005, the petitioner has been
undergoing the sentence and his proposal for premature
retirement was rejected in the meeting of the SSRB held
on 02.06.2023. In the meantime more than one year has
been elapsed. As stated in the Letter dated 19.07.2023
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 43 of 44
that the proposal/recommendation for premature
release of the petitioner can be reconsidered by the
SSRB “after expiry of a period of one year from the date
of last rejection as per para-8(4) of the Odisha Gazette
Notification No.1174, dated 19.04.2022”. Therefore, the
case of the petitioner for premature release deserves to
be reconsidered by the SSRB.
9.1. As a sequel to above material, the writ petition is
disposed of with direction that the SSRB shall convene
its meeting for the purpose of reconsideration of
premature release of the petitioner within a period of two
months from the date of the communication of this order
and it shall reconsider the matter in the light of the
observation made herein supra. Needless to observe that
the SSRB shall not be swayed away by its earlier
decision taken in its 43rd Meeting.
10. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of.
(HARISH TANDON)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY
Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-
The 26th August, 2025//Bichi/Laxmikant
in-Charge)
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 26-Aug-2025 14:57:17
WPCRL No.81 of 2025 Page 44 of 44