Co-Convicts Ordered Released, Life Convict’s Bid Deferred: P&H HC Orders Fresh Review Within 4 Weeks

Mukesh was convicted under Section 460 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment; his appeal was dismissed.

After an earlier direction to consider his claim for premature release, the authorities rejected it in February 2025, citing that he had not completed the required periods of actual and total imprisonment.

In April 2026, this Court directed the authorities to take a reasoned decision.

By order dated 24 August 2026, the authorities again rejected his claim and deferred reconsideration for one year to assess his conduct.

Mukesh argued that similarly placed co-convicts had been released and that the decision contravened the applicable 13 August 2008 policy and relevant precedent.

The State opposed relief on the ground of the gravity of the offences, but did not dispute that Mukesh fulfilled the policy’s conditions.

The Court applied the State’s Premature Release Policy dated 13 August 2008 and the constitutional requirements of equality and non-arbitrariness under Article 14, observing that an eligible prisoner’s case must be considered under the applicable policy and not denied without due reasons.

Relying on Joseph v. State of Kerala, it noted that inflexible executive guidelines must not foreclose individualized consideration of a prisoner’s reform and rehabilitation.

Rajkumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh requires the State to follow its governing rules and policies consistently and transparently.

Under State of Haryana v. Jagdish, relevant considerations include the nature and societal impact of the offence, likelihood of reoffending, the convict’s capacity to commit crime, the purpose of continued confinement, and the convict’s social and family circumstances.

The Court also relied on Pohlu @ Polu Ram v. State of Haryana for the requirement that decisions be reasoned and reflect application of mind, rather than ritualistic or arbitrary deferment.

The impugned decision relied on the seriousness of the crime and deferred reconsideration to assess Mukesh’s conduct, although the State did not dispute that he met the policy’s conditions.

The Court held that the policy had to be applied fairly and consistently, including in light of the treatment of similarly situated convicts, and that the gravity of the offence did not dispense with an individualized, reasoned assessment under the governing principles.

It therefore set aside the order but left the merits of release to the competent authority for fresh consideration.

It did not itself order Mukesh’s release.

The Court stated that deviation from its directions could entitle Mukesh to seek contempt proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution.