Page No.# 1/6 GAHC020000522025 2025:GAU-NL:238-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/2/2025 SHRI SANJAY KUMAR YADAV S/O SHRI RAM YADAV PERMANENT RESIDENT OF DUBKIYA VILLAGE VARANASI, UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH THE JAILOR, CENTRAL JAIL DIMAPUR- 797112, NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND NAGALAND, KOHIMA 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE HOME COMMISSIONER NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS NAGALAND KOHIM Advocate for the Petitioner : SENTIYANGER, KONLI BUCHEM,V ANNE THERIE Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAKHETO SEMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER O R D E R 04.06.2025 (Y. Longkumer, J.) The factual matrix of the present writ petition in brief is that the petitioner is serving a sentence of Life Imprisonment under Section 302 IPC at Central Jail, Dimapur, Nagaland. The petitioner was handed over by the Army Authority to the Regular Court along with the FIR on 04.11.2009 and the same was registered as FIR No. 043/2009 before the Officer-in- Charge, Sub-Urban Police Station, Dimapur, Nagaland. An application was thereafter moved by the General Officer Commanding, 3 Corps, PIN 908503, Court of 99 APO requesting the handing over of the case of the petitioner to the Court Martial. Subsequently, the District and Sessions Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland by Order dated 21.07.2010 passed in GR No. 631/2009 directed the Prosecuting Inspector to hand over the petitioner to the Military Authority along with the case records. 2. The petitioner was then convicted under Section 302 IPC by Judgment and Order dated 13.08.2012 passed by the General Army Court Martial in GR No. 631/2009. The petitioner filed an appeal No. OA 08/2014 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Branch, Guwahati but the same was dismissed vide Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2015. The petitioner also filed Criminal Appeal Diary No. 39534/2018 against the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Branch, Guwahati Page No.# 3/6 before the Supreme Court of India. However, by Order dated 03.01.2019 the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. 3. The petitioner having no other option after dismissal of his criminal appeal by the Supreme Court of India, submitted an appeal as a Mercy Petition to his Excellency, The Governor of Nagaland for reducing the sentence of punishment/remission on humanitarian grounds. Thereafter, the Assistant Inspector General of Prisons, Central Jail, Dimapur, Nagaland wrote letter dated 29.10.2019 to the Director General of Prisons, Nagaland, forwarding the petitioner’s Mercy Petition stating that the convict/petitioner has a good behaviour and has not committed any prison offence from the time of his admission into the jail till date. 4. The petitioner also wrote Representation dated 08.03.2024 before the State respondents praying for pre-mature release in terms of Government of Nagaland, Home Department Notification No. HOME/J- 46/99 dated 16.05.2001. However, the same has not been considered or disposed of till date. 5. It is further stated that the petitioner has been in prison since his initial arrest on 05.11.2009 and he has completed 14 (fourteen) years of actual imprisonment without remission on 05.11.2023 and the same qualifies him for pre-mature release under proviso 3.1 of the aforementioned Notification dated 16.05.2001. 6. Then the petitioner had filed WP(Crl.)/4/2024 before this Court, which was disposed of by Order dated 15.05.2024 with a direction to the Page No.# 4/6 State respondents to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 08.03.2004 in terms of the Notification dated 16.05.2001 issued by the Government of Nagaland as expeditiously as possible but keeping the outer time limit of five months from the date of the order. 7. Thereafter, the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Home Department, Nagaland, Kohima wrote a letter No. HOME/JL-05/COURT- 01/2024/154 dated 29.05.2024 addressed to the petitioner’s advocate stating that the Notification dated 16.05.2001 has been superseded by another Notification No. HOME/JL-46/99(Pt-1)/138 dated 16.05.2024 and that the case of the petitioner will be considered in the light of this Notification. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sentiyanger and Ms. S. Mere, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is praying for pre-mature release in terms of the Home Department Notification dated 16.05.2001 and not as per the Notification dated 16.05.2024. Learned counsel submits that the law is well settled in this regard that the policy existing at the time of conviction shall apply in such cases. He has submitted that the impugned Letter dated 29.05.2024 written by the Secretary, Home Department, Nagaland is misconceived in as much as the policy that was holding the field at the time of the petitioner’s conviction shall cover the consideration for premature release. To support his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied Page No.# 5/6 on the case of State of Haryana and Others Versus Jagdish reported in (2010) 4 SCC 216 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 54 as reproduced below. “54. The State authority is under an obligation to at least exercise its discretion in relation to an honest expectation perceived by the convict, at the time of his conviction that his case for pre-mature release would be considered after serving the sentence, prescribed in the short sentencing policy existing on that date. The State has to exercise its power of remission also keeping in view any such benefit to be construed liberally in favour of a convict which may depend upon case to case and for that purpose, in our opinion, it should relate to a policy which, in the instant case, was in favour of the respondent. In case a liberal policy prevails on the date of consideration of the case of a "lifer" for pre-mature release, he should be given benefit thereof.” The petitioner has also relied on the case of Devnath Singh and Others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2024) 6 SCC 578 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has again held that the convict to be considered for premature release has to be considered as per the policy which was in existence at the time of his conviction. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that it is now crystal clear that the petitioner’s case has to be considered in terms of the earlier Notification dated 16.05.2001, which existed at the time of his conviction and not the Notification dated 16.05.2024 in view of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition may be disposed of with a direction to the State respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s Representation in terms of the Notification dated 16.05.2001. 10. Learned Senior Government Advocate, Ms. S. Mere submitting on the basis of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 has stated that at the time of consideration of the Page No.# 6/6 petitioner’s Representation, the Notification in force was Notification dated 16.05.2024 which has superseded all the earlier Notifications and, therefore, the authority was bound to act as per the Notification in force. 11. We have considered the submissions of the opposing counsels and have perused the pleadings before the Court. We have also given our consideration to the authorities relied upon by the petitioner. What has emerged from a reading of the pleadings as well as the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others (supra) and Devnath Singh and Others (supra) is that the petitioner’s Representation needs to be considered in the light of the Notification No. HOME/JL-46/99 dated 16.05.2001 as this was the Notification in force at the time of the petitioner’s conviction. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the discussions made above, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the Representation of the petitioner in terms of the Home Department Notification No. HOME/JL-46/99 dated 16.05.2001 and dispose of the same with a Speaking Order within a period of one month. Petition stands disposed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant