Surendra @ Sunda vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh

2026 INSC 414
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRL.) DIARY NO.28783 OF 2023)


SURENDRA @ SUNDA … APPELLANT (S)
versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH … RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant Criminal Appeal was brought to challenge the
1
order of the Allahabad High Court (hereinafter referred to as “ High
Court ”) confirming the conviction for the charge under Section 302
read with Sections 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as “ IPC ”) and sentence of life imprisonment
awarded to the appellant.
3. On 13.08.2024, when the appeal came up for hearing, it was
informed that the appellant was released on bail in furtherance to
the order dated 15.3.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NIDHI AHUJA
Date: 2026.04.24
18:01:35 IST
Reason:

1
Order dated 13.09.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.370 of 1983.
1

Mathura. The order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was in
pursuance of the order dated 10.1.2024 of the High Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 2016, titled Ganesh vs. State of U.P.
The High Court in the said order had directed to release the
convicts on bail in case their applications for premature release
were kept pending for more than six months. It is not out of place
to mention that the direction as issued in the Ganesh (Supra) was
not related to the case of the appellant and the sentence served by
the appellant till the date of his release was only two years and five
months. After taking cognizance of these facts, explanation was
sought vide orders dated 13.08.2024 and 03.09.2024 passed in
the proceedings of this case that once the criminal appeal referred
above is of different person in a different case, how the Chief
Judicial Magistrate could have released the accused without any
order of the Court in the appellant’s case.
4. It was informed in the State’s affidavit dated 06.09.2024 that
the full Bench of the High Court’s Lucknow bench had taken
cognizance of the correctness of the directions issued in Ganesh
(Supra), and therefore, in the case of Ambrish Kumar Verma vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Misc. Writ Petion No. 1915 of
2024), after considering the same, it was held that the power of
2

remission is only retained by the appropriate authority. The
Division Bench could not have issued any general direction to the
Chief Judicial Magistrates for releasing the convicts on bail
without any orders passed in the pending appeals of such convicts
before the High Court or by the Competent Courts. In the
interregnum, however, prior to the judgment of the Full Bench in
Ambrish Kumar (Supra), many convicts were released on bail in
furtherance to the directions in Ganesh (Supra) by the respective
Chief Judicial Magistrates. Since direction to take back the
accused into custody was not issued by the Full Bench in Ambrish
Kumar (Supra) and the order of Ganesh (Supra) though not found
as good law, however, the position was required to be reversed by
the High Court itself.
5. In the above conspectus, and with an intent to give effect to
the Full Bench judgment in Ambrish Kumar (Supra), this Court,
vide a detailed order dated 09.09.2024 directed the appellant to
surrender, and sought the information from the State of Uttar
Pradesh as under:
“ 11. Looking to the gravity of the matter, we must also seek
a detailed affidavit from the Principal Secretary (Home) and
Principal Secretary (Prisons) of the State of Uttar Pradesh on
the following:
3

a. How the Jail Authorities could recommend the case of the
Petitioner for remission without compliance of the State’s
remission policy which mandates 14 years minimum
imprisonment for a life convict to be considered for
remission, since he had only served a period of 2 years 5
months of imprisonment?
b. After the decision of the Full Bench in Ambarish (Supra)
setting aside directions issued in Ganesh (Supra),
whether the Petitioner has been taken back in custody?
If not, whether any steps have been taken by the State of
Uttar Pradesh in that regard?
c. How many convicts have been taken back in custody
after the aforesaid directions were set aside by the Full
Bench?
d. Whether these convicts were eligible for premature
release as per State Remission Policy? If not, how were
their names recommended for remission / premature
release by the concerned Jail Authorities?
e. Whether their application for remission of the
aforementioned convicts was pending on the date of their
release on interim bail?”
6. The State filed an affidavit dated 08.11.2024 in compliance
of the order dated 09.09.2024. It was explained by the State that
pursuant to the directions in Ganesh (Supra), a list of prisoners
whose early release applications were pending for more than 6
months was forwarded to the respective Chief Judicial Magistrates
by the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority. Pursuant
thereto, 158 prisoners were released by orders of the concerned
Chief Judicial Magistrates since their applications for early release
were pending for more than 6 months. Out of the 158 prisoners,
10 prisoners’ application for early release was accepted under
4

various policies applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh and arrest
warrants had been issued against 56 prisoners, out of which 25
prisoners were re-arrested and 31 prisoners are yet to be re-
arrested. Applications for re-arrest of the rest of the 92 prisoners
had been forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrates concerned.
Out of these 158 prisoners, there were 21 prisoners including the
appellant herein who had not completed 14 years of imprisonment
which is a requirement for premature release under the Uttar
Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 or in policy and
16 such prisoners had been re-arrested and warrants had been
issued against 5 convicts.
7. In the aforesaid affidavit dated 08.11.2024, it was also
informed by the State that there are five mechanisms for early
release in the State of Uttar Pradesh, which are as follows:
(i) Uttar Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938:
Life convicts who have undergone 14 years of
imprisonment without remission are conditionally released
on license by Government subject to good conduct post-
release. This mechanism is also called ‘Form-A release’.
(ii) Under Section 432 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
read with Para 180 of U.P. Jail Manual, 2022: Life convicts
5

who have undergone 14 years of imprisonment without
remission are considered for early release. This
mechanism is also called ‘Nominal Roll’.

(iii) Under Section 432 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
read with Para 177, 178, 179 of U.P. Jail Manual, 2022:
Release on the basis of infirmity, old age and critical illness
as assessed by the Medical Board. This mechanism is also
called ‘Infirmity Roll’.
(iv) Under Article 161 of the Constitution of India along with
some filters formulated by State in Standing Police made
in 2018 as amended in 2021 and 2022: Life convicts who
have undergone 16 years without remission and 20 years
with remission with some relaxations for terminally ill and
old aged prisoners who may qualify certain filters laid
down by State.
(v) General Mercy Petition under Article 161 of the
Constitution of India: Consideration by the Hon’ble
Governor of the State upon application by the convicts.
There is no minimum sentence period required for this
mechanism.
6

It was also brought to light in the said affidavit that the
aforementioned five mechanisms have their independent
considerations and requirements, the flow of applications from one
authority to another in each mechanism is distinct.
8. In the meantime, many prisoners who were eligible for grant
of early release, approached this Court by filing applications for
intervention and directions seeking protection from re-arrest until
their remission application was decided by the State. On
13.11.2024, this Court directed the Secretary (Prisons) of the State
of Uttar Pradesh to give the jail-wise details of prisoners who have
completed fourteen years of their sentence which is bare minimum
period for consideration of their cases for remission. In the same
order, it was directed that persons who had served more than 14
years of sentence shall not be arrested until the next date of listing.
9. In compliance, the affidavit dated 12.12.2024 filed by the
State indicated a shocking picture that a large number of cases
were pending for remission at various stages, on different tables or
with different authorities. Particularly, it was informed that
throughout the State, there were 1678 prisoners who had served
more than 14 years’ sentence without remission as on 31.10.2024
and their present status was as follows:
7

ELIGIBLE PRISONERS THROUGHOUT THE STATE
(AS ON 31.10.2024)

10. With respect to the 158 prisoners who had been released
pursuant to the directions in Ganesh (Supra), it was informed in
the affidavit dated 12.12.2024 that 21 of them had not completed
14 years of sentence, 20 of them had been arrested and 1 person
had died. In respect of the remaining 137 prisoners, their cases for
premature release were pending at various stages as detailed
below:
DETAILS OF PRISONERS RELEASED PURSUANT TO GANESH
8

11. In this sequence, and realising the right of the persons to
have their request for premature release considered, on
17.12.2024, this Court took a strict view and directed the State to
clear all pending proposals of the 137 prisoners released pursuant
to Ganesh (Supra) within a period of two months and in the
meanwhile, it was directed that the State shall not arrest them. It
was noticed by this Court that the reasons stated for pendency at
different levels was either not at all satisfactory and they were non-
explanatory.
12. In compliance of the aforesaid direction to consider the early
release applications of the 137 prisoners who were eligible for early
release and were released pursuant to the directions in Ganesh
9

(Supra), an affidavit dated 24.02.2025 was filed by the State
reporting substantial compliance. It was informed that out of the
137 prisoners, 36 prisoners had been released, while 81
applications were rejected. 6 prisoners were covered under the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 so their cases had been referred to the Central
Government for final decision and such decision was awaited. The
proposal for 13 prisoners was said to be pending at the competent
level while 1 prisoner had died on 25.08.2024. A comparative table
was also supplied detailing the updated status of pendency in
respect of these prisoners as on 24.02.2025 juxtaposed against the
status on 12.12.2024:

10

13. While the process of consideration of the applications for
premature release of the prisoners was ongoing, this Court, on
04.03.2025 granted further three weeks’ time for filing the
compliance report. The Court realized the huge gap in
implementation of the different mechanisms for early release in the
State which is marred by humongous administrative delay caused
at different stages before different authorities. It was informed that
a major cause of such delay is due to the processing of remission
applications through physical paperwork and the Court mooted
the proposal to take corrective measures.
14. This Court in its order dated 04.03.2025 directed the State to
develop a software to properly implement the judgement dated
18.02.2025 of this Court in Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In
2
re where this Court had given a nod of approval to the National

2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 349.
11

Legal Services Authority’s (hereinafter referred to as “ NALSA ”)
Standard Operating Procedure on legal assistance,
operationalisation, and co-ordination in improving the process of
premature release, parole, furlough of prisoners, 2022 (hereinafter
referred to as “ SOP ”) which had been formulated as per the
directions issued by this Court in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.
4358-59 of 2021 in the case of Kadir v. State of Uttar Pradesh ,
wherein it was held that the case of prisoners must be considered
for premature release as and when they become eligible and the
consideration should be automatically triggered without any need
of an application being filed and the process of their consideration
should be initiated a few months prior to their date of becoming
eligible. Relevant portion of the judgement in In Re: Policy
Strategy for grant of bail (Supra) is quoted herein for reference:

12

…
21. We, therefore, record the following conclusions:
a) Where there is a policy of the appropriate Government
laying down guidelines for consideration of the grant of
premature release under Section 432 of the CrPC or Section
473 of the BNSS, it is the obligation of the appropriate
Government to consider cases of all convicts for grant of
premature release as and when they become eligible for
consideration in terms of the policy. In such a case, it is not
necessary for the convict or his relatives to make a specific
application for grant of permanent remission. When the jail
manual or any other departmental instruction issued by the
appropriate Government contains such policy guidelines,
the aforesaid direction will apply;
b) We direct those States and Union Territories that do not
have a policy dealing with the grant of remission in terms of
Section 432 of the CrPC or Section 473 of the BNSS to
formulate a policy within two months from today;
c) Appropriate Government has the power to incorporate
suitable conditions in an order granting permanent
remission. Consideration of various factors, which are
mentioned in the paragraph 13 above by way of illustration,
is necessary before finalizing the conditions. The conditions
must aim at ensuring that the criminal tendencies, if any, of
the convict remain in check and that the convict rehabilitates
himself in the society. The conditions should not be so
oppressive or stringent that the convict is not able to take
advantage of the order granting permanent remission. The
13

conditions cannot be vague and should be capable of being
performed;
d) Order granting or refusing the relief of permanent
remission must contain brief reasons. The order containing
reasons should be immediately communicated to the convict
through the office of the concerned prison. The copies thereof
should be forwarded to the Secretaries of the concerned
District Legal Services Authorities. It is the duty of the prison
authorities to inform the convict that he has the right to
challenge the order of rejection of the prayer for the grant of
remission.
4
e) As held in the case of Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar , an order
granting permanent remission cannot be withdrawn or
cancelled without giving an opportunity of being heard to
the convict. An order of cancellation of permanent remission
must contain brief reasons;
f) The District Legal Services Authorities shall endeavour to
implement NALSA SOP in its true letter and spirit.
g) Further, the District Legal Services Authorities shall also
monitor implementation of conclusion (a) as recorded above.
For this purpose, the District Legal Services Authorities shall
maintain the relevant date of the convicts and as and when
they become eligible to a consideration for grant of
premature release, they shall do the needful in terms of
conclusion (a). The State Legal Services Authorities shall
endeavour to create a portal on which the data as aforesaid
can be uploaded on real time basis. ”
15. With an intent to reflect the purpose behind the judgement
In Re: Policy Strategy for grant of bail (Supra), this Court vide
order dated 04.03.2025 recorded the assurance of the State of
Uttar Pradesh to develop a software and prepare an SOP to that
effect, in the following terms:
“ At the same time, as assured, the Government shall
develop a software and prepare SOP, thereby, compliance
of judgment dated 18.02.2025 of this Court in the case of In
14

Re: Policy Strategy for grant of bail (Suo Motu Writ Petition
(Crl.) No. 4 of 2021) shall be timely observed in particular
the cases of those prisoners who have completed 14
years/16 years of the actual jail sentence. ”

16. The State, in compliance by affidavit dated 28.03.2025,
informed that e-Prisons software already exists wherein
information regarding prisoners who have completed 14 years of
sentence without remission is shown. Besides this, National
Informatics Centre (hereinafter referred to as “ NIC ”) has been
requested vide letter dated 27.03.2025 to develop and customise
the premature release e-module as per need of various policies of
premature release prevalent in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
17. On 01.04.2025, this Court requested Mr. K. Parameshwar,
learned senior counsel to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae in
formation of the software envisaged in its earlier order dated
04.03.2025. Relevant portion of the order dated 01.04.2025 is
quoted herein for reference:
“ After hearing learned counsel appearing for both the
parties, we requested Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned senior
counsel to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae and to give
suggestions regarding preparation of the software, indicate
in flowchart whereby the cases of the prisoners who have
completed the requisite period of sentence in jail after
conviction whereafter their cases may be taken for
consideration for premature release/remission
automatically in terms of policy by virtue of that software.
The flow chart would also indicate the period of taking
15

decision stepwise by the authorities which are indulged in
this process as per law. It would further indicate the
required indulgence of the State Legal Services Authority at
appropriate stage and with interval of how many days, the
Committee who has to take a decision ought to have sit. ”
18. Thereafter, this Court has held numerous meetings for
developing a software for automating the process of premature
release and for initiation of the process of consideration months
prior to the prisoners becoming eligible, with the team from NIC,
the DIG (Prisons), State of Uttar Pradesh, the Prisons
Administration Department, State of Uttar Pradesh, the
representative from the IT Wing of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh and the learned Amicus , on 18.02.2025, 15.09.2025,
15.12.2025, 08.01.2026, 19.01.2026, 04.02.2026 and
07.04.2026.
19. Through the concerted efforts, inputs and suggestions of all
concerned, the NIC has successfully developed the ‘ E-Prisons
Early Release Processing Module ’ (hereinafter referred to as the
“ Processing Module ”) within the pre-existing e-Prisons platform
for processing the applications for premature release of prisoners
under the five policies prevailing in the State of Uttar Pradesh for
that purpose. The Processing Module aims to provide several
16

advantages and has various salient features, including but not
limited to:
(i) The process for premature release of convicts is
automatically commenced by identifying the prisoners who
are eligible for premature release, four months in advance;
(ii) The prisoner/guardian receives routine updates regarding
the progress of his/her application, at each stage of the
process, through automated alerts via SMS and
WhatsApp;
(iii) The physical movement of files is eliminated by uploading
the PDF / scanned files to the online platform during the
pilot stage of implementation. It is envisioned that once the
infrastructure and training is in place, at a later stage, this
would migrate to an automated paperless online system;
(iv) The procedural delay at each stage/level of the process is
sought to be curtailed by enforcing timelines upon the
respective stakeholders, along with a short grace period to
meet unforeseen exigencies. Further, based on the inputs
of the Court, an alert system has been implemented for
each stakeholder with different colour coding for process
17

undertaken within the time period prescribed, and for the
grace period;
(v) It is proposed to provide for interconnectivity of data of the
prisoner available with the Jail (Prisoner Identification
Number), Police Station (FIR), and Courts (Case Number
Record) so as to automate data-sharing;
(vi) Accountability has been fixed upon each stakeholder
through digital signatures and linking of login ID of the
officers concerned in the interest of transparency;
(vii) There is centralised monitoring and processing update
dashboard for the competent authorities to monitor the
stakeholders and track the time taken by each
stakeholder, for generating quarterly reports, to identify
delays, and to trigger remedial actions.
20. The Processing Module is currently attuned with the policies
for early release applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, and we
are directing its implementation as a pilot project in the Central
Jail, Agra and the District Jail, Lucknow. During our deliberations
in the aforementioned meetings, we have suggested to the NIC that
the software be coded in such a manner that upon successful
completion of the pilot project in the said jails, the software can be
18

widely implemented, first across jails in Uttar Pradesh and then
across the country, tweaking the software to adapt to the different
policies for early release applicable in different States. It is also our
vision and hope that the Processing Module will, in future,
seamlessly integrate the data available with the police, prison
authorities and the judiciary so as to further automate the process
and to make it completely paperless.
21. During our deliberations in the aforementioned meetings, all
the inputs have been vital and helpful. In the interregnum, Mr.
Kuldeep Singh Kushwah, Registrar (Information & Technology),
Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh), who was part and parcel of those
discussions, had developed a software on those issues and
displayed a module prepared by the Madhya Pradesh High Court
for the automation of the early release applications in the State of
Madhya Pradesh in terms of the policies applicable in the State.
The software prepared by the Madhya Pradesh High Court also
appears to be comprehensive. While the pilot project of the
Processing Module is ongoing in the State of Uttar Pradesh in
terms of the directions issued in this order, the State of Madhya
Pradesh may implement the software as developed by the High
Court. After the conclusion of the pilot project, the best practices,
19

implementation framework and learning from the Madhya Pradesh
High Court, software can contribute towards improving the
Processing Module and vice versa. Ultimately, the intent of this
Court is to ensure that in the future, a catch-all software can be
prepared which can be made applicable across the board in all
States across the country and both software can contribute
towards achieving a seamless system for automating the process
of consideration of early release applications.
22. In order to operationalize the pilot project of the Processing
Module in Central Jail, Agra and the District Jail, Lucknow
initially, the following directions are being issued:
(i) The State Government shall provide the following
necessary human resources, including but not limited to:
i. two computer operators at the Central Jail, Agra;
ii. one computer operator at the District Jail, Lucknow;
iii. one computer operator at all range offices;
iv. three computer operators at Prison Headquarter level
in the concerned branch;
v. three computer operators at the State Government
level in the concerned branch and
20

vi. two technical experts with domain knowledge in
computer applications to supervise and assist the
work of the above-mentioned computer operators and
co-ordinate with the NIC in case of any technical
issues.
(ii) The aforementioned computer operators shall exclusively
be tasked with the implementation of the Processing
Module as their responsibility.
(iii) The State government shall provide computers and other
infrastructural / hardware requirements of the
aforementioned computer operators and technical experts
and facilitate their working;
(iv) The NIC and the State shall within a time period of three
weeks, together set up a team of officers, and assign one
suitable person as the Nodal officer who shall impart
training to the officials and stakeholders for effective
operation of the software. Such training shall be imparted
with representation of the District Legal Services Authority
and State Legal Services Authority;
(v) The computer operators as mentioned in direction (i) shall
be engaged within the next four weeks and the first
21

training session and initiation of the pilot project of the
Processing Module shall be undertaken within a period of
four weeks at Central Jail, Agra and District Jail, Lucknow;

(vi) In case any further directions are necessary to facilitate
the pilot project of implementation of the Processing
Module, liberty is granted to file an application in that
regard.
(vii) The State of Uttar Pradesh shall make all necessary
logistical arrangements for the pilot project and ensure its
smooth operation. The Principal Secretary (Prisons) and
the Director General (Prisons) shall oversee such
implementation.
(viii) The State Legal Services Authority shall also set-up a
committee within a period of four weeks, which shall co-
ordinate with the State and respective stakeholders to
steer the implementation of the pilot project. If the State
Legal Services Authority deems it necessary, it may
request a Hon’ble retired judge of the High Court having
an interest in the cause to monitor the due implementation
of the software, on basis. Furthermore, if the
pro bono
committee or the respective Hon’ble retd. Judge has any
22

recommendations, they may be placed before the Registry
of this Court, at which point the matter shall be listed for
further directions.
23.
The Registry is also directed to circulate a copy of this order
to all States and Union Territories, which, if they deem fit, may
develop software along similar lines in collaboration with the NIC
or otherwise, for the automatic consideration of prisoners’
applications for premature release in accordance with their
respective policies/schemes.
th
24. List on 18 May 2026 for compliance and for further
directions.


…………………………………,J.
[J.K. MAHESHWARI]



…………………………………,J.

[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]
New Delhi;
April 13, 2026.

23