APHC010100792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3541] THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 5377/2025 Between: 1. KASIREDDY VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O. KASIREDDY RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, FLAT NUMBER 403, JEEVANI APARTMENTS, ROCK TOWN COLONY ROAD NUMBER 1, NEAR GOTETI KALYANA MANDAPAM, MANSOORABAD, K.V. RANGA REDDY DIST., TELANGANA ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOR HOME, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LEGAL AFFAIRS, LAW DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, K.R. RAO PLAZA, 0PP. MODERN SUPER BAZAAR, DURGAPURAM, SN PURAM, 2 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.5377 of 2025 BAVAJIPET, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH 520003 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT, PRISONERS AGRICULTURAL COLONY, ANANTHAPURAMU CITY AND DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the Petitioner's father i.e. a convict prisoner namely Kasireddy Ramakrishna Reddy (Convict No. 4480) son of P.G.K.R.Venkata Reddy before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty by declaring the action of the respondents in not giving remission in his favour in accordance with remission policy applicable as on the date of his conviction issued by way of GO MS No. 283 dated 30.10.2010 as arbitrary illegal unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the ratio of the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216, State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh, (2007) 13 SCC 606 and State of Haryana v. Bhup Singh, (2009) 2 SCC 268 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME This Court made the following: 3 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.5377 of 2025 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Sumathi Jagadam) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to produce his father before this Court i.e., a convict prisoner and set him at liberty by declaring the action of the respondents in not giving remission in favour of his father in accordance with the remission policy applicable as on the date of his conviction issued by way of G.O.Ms.No.283, Home (PRISONS.C) Department, dated 30.10.2010, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents, and perused the record. 3. The petitioner is a native of Pullagummi village, Veldurthy Mandal, Kurnool District. His father was convicted in the following cases: Crime number and conviction by Sessions Court Appeal before High Court Appeal before Supreme Court Sentence served Cr.No.99 of 1994 of Gadivemula P.S., Kurnool District for the offences u/s 147, 148, 302, 307, 324, 332 r/w 149 IPC. The III Addl. Sessions Judge, Nandyal, convicted him for life on 31.07.2022 in S.C.No.76/1998. On 14.10.2004 he was acquitted by the High Court in Crl.A.Nos.923 & 926 of 2002. On 03.07.2018 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crl.A. Nos.2089 & 2090 of 2009 confirmed the judgment of trial Court. Accused served actual sentence of more than 10 years and remission of more than four years. Total sentence served is 12 years 11 months and 26 days as on 15.03.2022. 4 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.5377 of 2025 Cr.No.7 of 2007 for the offences u/s 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 and 302 R/w 149 IPC. The IV Addl.Sessions Judge, Kurnool, convicted him for life on 28.04.2011 in S.C.No.348 of 2008. On 21.02.2018 he was acquitted by the High Court in Crl.A.No.611 of 2011 On 07.03.2022 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No. 74 of 2022 confirmed the judgment of trial Court. Accused served actual sentence of more than 8 years and remission of more than 3 years. 4. The petitioner’s father was released from prison between 2004 and 2011. During this period, i.e., on 18.01.2007, he was involved in Crime No.7 of 2007. The learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool convicted him to life imprisonment. He was imprisoned from April 2011 following his conviction. 5. The first respondent issued a special remission to life- convicted prisoners through G.O.Ms.No.121, Home (Paroles & HRC) Department, dated 14.08.2022. The petitioner’s father's name was listed at Sl.No.169 in the remission list. Although his name appeared in the list, he has not been released, which has led to the filing of the present writ petition. 6. In support of his version, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following judgments: i) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Mahender Singh1 held that the remission policy applicable as on the date of conviction should be followed. ii) In State of Haryana Vs. Jagdish2, the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: 1 (2007) 13 SCC 606 5 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.5377 of 2025 “46. At the time of considering the case of premature release of a life convict, the authorities may require to consider his case mainly taking into consideration whether the offence was an individual act of crime without affecting the society at large; whether there was any chance of future recurrence of committing a crime; whether the convict had lost his potentiality in committing the crime; whether there was any fruitful purpose of confining the convict anymore; the socio-economic condition of the convict’s family and other similar circumstances.” 7. The 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that in the first case, the conviction period as of 10.04.2025 is 14 years, 6 months and 6 days, including remission. As a convict prisoner, he has completed 9 years, 6 months and 17 days as of the cutoff date, i.e., 15.08.2021. The 1st respondent recommended the petitioner’s father for the grant of a special remission under the 65 years old category, vide G.O.Ms.No.91, Home (Paroles & HRC) Department, dated 16.08.2021, and he was listed at Sl.No.169 in the release list issued vide G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 14.08.2022. Subsequently, the accused was convicted for life by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.Nos. 72 and 74 of 2022 on 07.03.2022 in the second case. i). Under Clause 8, Category II (xviii) of G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 16.08.2021, a restriction is imposed on prisoners involved and convicted for life in two or more different murder cases. Having come to know about his life imprisonment in the second case, the respondents have deleted the name of the petitioner’s father vide 2 (2010) 4 SCC 216 6 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.5377 of 2025 G.O.Ms.No.83, Home (Paroles & HRC) Department, dated 10.05.2023. 8. The learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 and Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.529 of 2021 3 has framed four issues in paragraph 5 of its judgment as follows: “The first issue is whether the power to grant remission can be exercised without the convict or anyone on behalf of the convict applying to the appropriate Government for a grant of remission. The second issue is about the nature of conditions imposed while granting remission. The third issue is whether there can be automatic revocation of remission granted to the convict, if he commits a breach of the terms and conditions on which remission is granted. Lastly, another question is whether there is a requirement to record reasons while rejecting applications of the convicts for grant of permanent remission.” i) Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the judgment refer to the Revocation of grant of remission and Requirement of recording reasons: 3 MANU/SC/0233/2025=2025 (2) ALT (Crl.) 119 (A.P) 7 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.5377 of 2025 “16. Even while passing an order of cancellation of the order of remission, the appropriate Government must record brief reasons. The reason is it takes away the liberty granted to the convicts. When an order of remission is cancelled, it affects the right of the convict to liberty under the Constitution. Therefore, the requirement of recording reasons must be read into the provisions of Sub-Sections (2) of Section 432 of the CrPC and Section 473 of the BNSS. The convict must be given a show cause notice stating the grounds for cancellation and he must be provided an opportunity to file a reply. If this is not read into the statute, the convict will not be in a position to defend the proceedings. 17) The power to grant premature release must be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner. It affects the convict's liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, the requirement of recording reasons either for granting or rejecting the prayer for permanent remission will have to be read into the provisions of Section 432 of the CrPC and Section 473 of the BNSS. Principles of natural justice must be read into the provisions of Section 432 of the CrPC. In any case, in the case of Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India4 in paragraph 222.8, this Court held that the reasons for grant or refusal of remission should be clearly delineated in the order. Therefore, the requirement to record reasons exists. Brief reasons must be recorded, which are sufficient to enable the convict, to understand why his prayer for remission has been 4 (2024) 5 SCC 481 8 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.5377 of 2025 rejected. This enables him to challenge the order of rejection.” ii) In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court recorded the following conclusions: 21. 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 9 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.5377 of 2025 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 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. 22. In terms of what we have held earlier, various issues raised regarding the grant of permanent remission stand answered on the above terms. Other issues will be considered on the dates already fixed. 23. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to NALSA which in turn will forward the same to the Legal Service Authorities of the States and Union Territories to enable them to monitor implementation of the directions issued under this Judgment”. 9. Learned Government Pleader for Home further argues that in pursuance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the State has formulated permanent guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.71, Home (Paroles & HRC) Department, dated 17.04.2025. Guideline Nos.7 and 10 read thus: 10 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.5377 of 2025 “7. The remission of sentence in para (6) above shall apply to life convicted prisoners, who have been convicted by the courts situated within the State of Andhra Pradesh and are undergoing sentence in Andhra Pradesh and in other States, but shall not apply to the following category of prisoners, namely: xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xviii. The Life convicts involved and convicted for Life in two or more different murder cases. 10. The above Committee so constituted will examine and scrutinize each case on its merit and recommend or reject and with reasons in writing in case of rejection, so as to avoid future legal complications.” 10. The sole issue before this Court is, whether the accused/father of the petitioner is eligible for remission when a life sentence has been imposed in the second case?. 11. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to refer to Section 427 of Cr.P.C., which reads thus: “427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence – (1) when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. 11 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.5377 of 2025 Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under Section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately. (2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term of imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.” 12. Remission is a reduction in the length of imprisonment granted to a prisoner based on their good conduct and compliance with prison rules. It allows the prisoner to be released before completing the original sentence and date. Remission is often associated with good conduct within the prison system, meaning the prisoner has generally followed rules and maintained a positive attitude. When a similar situation has fallen for consideration in RANJIT SINGH VS. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER5, the Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed about the effect of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. at para 9 of its judgment as under: “9………….. The real exercise is to construe the last sentence in the direction which reads as under: 5 (1991) 4 SCC 304 12 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.5377 of 2025 "We, therefore, direct that if any remission or commutation of his earlier sentence is granted to him, the present sentence should commence thereafter." It is in the background of this ultimate direction that the preceding portion has to be read. This last sentence in the direction means that in case, any remission or commutation is granted in respect of the earlier sentence of life imprisonment alone then the benefit of that remission or commutation will not ipso facto be available in respect of the subsequent sentence of life imprisonment which would continue to be unaffected by the remission or commutation in respect of the earlier sentence alone. In other words, the operation of the superimposed subsequent sentence of life imprisonment shall not be wiped out merely because in respect of the corresponding earlier sentence of life imprisonment any remission or commutation has been granted by the appropriate authority. The consequence is that the petitioner would not get any practical benefit of any remission or commutation in respect of his earlier sentence because of the superimposed subsequent life sentence unless the same corresponding benefit in respect of the subsequent sentence is also granted to the petitioner. It is in this manner that the direction is given for the two sentences of life imprisonment not to run concurrently.” 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in M.R. Kudva Vs. State of A.P.6 held that when the trial Court or the High Court fails to indicate that “the sentence passed against the accused run concurrently,” 6 (2007) 2 SCC 772 13 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.5377 of 2025 then any separate proceeding passed by the High Court is not maintainable as such an exercise was not done while passing judgment. 14. In paragraph 15 of its judgment dated 18.02.2025 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “15. In the light of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the BNSS, there is a power vesting in the appropriate Government to cancel the remission. The cancellation can be only on the grounds of the breach of the terms and conditions on which the remission is granted. In case of cancellation, the convict is required to undergo the remaining sentence. The test to be applied and the procedure to be followed are set out in clauses (v) and (vi) of paragraph 17 of the decision of this Court in the case of Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2982.” 15. As the petitioner’s father has satisfied the condition (5+2 years) in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 16.08.2021, the name of the petitioner’s father was recommended for the grant of special remission under the 65 years category, and his name was also figured at Sl.No.169 in the release list. After knowing that the petitioner’s father was convicted in another case, his name was deleted vide G.O.Ms.No.83 dated 10.05.2023. 16. When a person/accused is involved in two different crimes and is convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on different 14 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.5377 of 2025 dates, and after getting remission in connection with the first crime, when the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the accused in connection with the second crime was confirmed by the Apex Court, then the accused is not automatically entitled to grant of remission because he was convicted in the other crime. 17. The power of the Court is to convict or acquit a person based on the evidence presented during trial. However, the Government has a discretionary power of the executive to grant bail based on the individual's conduct within the prison, not as a right stemming from other offences. A prior remission of a sentence does not automatically absolve a convict from a subsequent sentence. Suppose, a convict is granted remission in a case and later convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in a separate case. In that case, the remission granted in the first case has no bearing on the second sentence. The second sentence is superimposed upon the first, and the period of the second sentence begins from the date of arrest in that case. 18. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that, as on the date of granting remission, the existing rules shall be considered, but the learned counsel for the petitioner neither filed the said guidelines along with the writ petition nor submitted them before this Court in advance. On the other hand, pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has formulated the guidelines. It is necessary to add that the Court has the power to impose a sentence, but to consider the case of the convict for the grant of remission, appropriate decision has to be taken by the 15 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.5377 of 2025 Government. The accused/the petitioner’s father was involved in two different crimes of similar nature. The accused was acquitted by the High Court on 14.10.2004 in the first case, and thereafter, he was involved in the second case, i.e., Crime No.7 of 2007. The respondents have recommended the case of the petitioner’s father for special remission under the 65-year category. While considering the case of the accused for remission, the authorities should also bear in mind the conduct of the convicted persons, which includes whether the life convicted is involved in any other case, and at the same time, the authorities should also consider the victims’ family, who have suffered mental agony due to the death that has happened in their family. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh case (5 supra) has held that the accused would not get any practical benefit of any remission or commutation in respect of his earlier sentence because of the superimposed subsequent life sentence unless the same corresponding benefit in respect of the ensuing sentence is also granted to the petitioner. Moreover, in the instant case, there is no direction from the Court as to whether the sentences must run concurrently or consecutively; in the absence of such a direction, the accused is required to undergo both sentences consecutively. 19. The 1st respondent, after coming to know about the conviction in the second case, issued G.O.Ms.No.83 dated 10.05.2023, deleting the name of the petitioner’s father. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 has held that appropriate reasons must be given for cancelling the remission order issued to the accused, while following the guidelines framed by the Government for compliance with the Apex Court’s order. 16 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.5377 of 2025 However, the 1st respondent did not act accordingly while passing the rejection order in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.83 dated 10.05.2023. 20. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it is our considered opinion that it is a fit case to remit the matter back to the first respondent herein, directing him to pass appropriate speaking orders afresh by giving proper reasons in terms of the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.71 dated 17.04.2023 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 21. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, any miscellaneous petitions pending shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 4th September, 2025 cbs 17 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.5377 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Writ Petition No.5377 of 2025 4th September, 2025 cbs