APHC010211572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 11022/2025 Between: 1. BACHULA KUMARI, W/O PRASAD AGED 43 YEARS OCC. COOLIE R/O TALAPALEM, MACHILIPATNAM KRISHNA 2. T NEERAJA, W/O BANDI NARISIMHULU AGED 42 YEARS OCC. COOLIE R/O SN PURAM, RAJIV NAGAR TIRUPATHI 3. ODUGU LAKSHMI DURGA BHAVANI, W/O ODUGU VEERANJANEYULU AGED 36 YEARS OCC. COOLIE R/O 11-88/1, SUNDARAYA NAGAR KATTA IBRAHIMPATNAM VIJAYAWADA ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, D.NO.24- 28/1-8A, DURGAPURAM, GULABITHOTA, VIJAYAWADA 520 003, ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. GUNDALA SIVA PRASADA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents delay in considering the release of Petitioner's husbands immediately through remission in accordance with rules, law and the Orders of 2 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 18.02.2025 in SLP(Criminal) No.529/2021 is illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently directing the Respondents to release the Petitioner's husbands immediately through remission in accordance with rules, law and the Orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 18.02.2025 in SLP(Criminal) No.529/2021.= 2. Heard Sri Gundala Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.A.Jayanthi, learned Government Pleader for Home. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the respective husbands of the Petitioners herein i.e., C.T.No.6006, C.T.No.0006 and C.T.No.005, were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on 01.12.2015, 01.12.2015 and 22.04.2015 in murder case and have been in District Jail, Vijayawada, Sub Jail, Polavaram and Sub Jail, Polavaram respectively. Learned counsel would further submit that, the husband of Petitioner No.1 has undergone actual sentence of 09 years 09 months and 09 days and total sentence of 13 years 06 months and 25 days. The husband of Petitioner No.2 has undergone actual sentence of 09 years 07 months and 28 days and total sentence of 13 years 04 months and 09 days. The husband of Petitioner No.3 has undergone actual sentence of 10 years 03 months and 28 days and total sentence of 13 years 08 months and 19 days. Learned counsel would further submit that the husbands of Petitioners herein were life convicted in the year 2015 for the offence of murder and in obedience to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 09.02.2022, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.58, Home (Paroles & HRC) Department, dated 16.03.2023, which was subsisting as on the date of conviction of the convict prisoners. It is 3 further submitted that, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Mahender Singh and others1, the policy that was prevailing on the date of conviction shall be applicable to the life convict to release him on remission. Learned Counsel would further submit, though the husbands of the Petitioners fall under the ambit of G.O.Ms.No.58, Home (Paroles & HRC) Department, dated 16.03.2023, the Respondents have arbitrarily rejected their case by relying on G.O.Ms.No.71, Home (Paroles & HRC) Department, dated 17.04.2025 and the G.O has to operate prospectively but not retrospectively. Learned counsel would finally submit that, in view of G.O.Ms.No.58, dated 16.03.2003, the husbands of the Petitioners may prematurely be released. 4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home would submit that, the convict prisoners are not eligible for grant of special remission as per the G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 17.04.2025 as they do not satisfy the condition of completion of 14 years of actual sentence and 20 years of total sentence. 5. As seen from the material placed on record, the life convicts who are the respective husband of the Petitioners herein were convicted and have undergone actual sentence of 09 years 09 months and 09 days and total sentence of 13 years 06 months and 25 days, actual sentence of 09 years 07 months and 28 days and total sentence of 13 years 04 months and 09 days and actual sentence of 10 years 03 months and 28 days and total sentence of 13 years 08 months and 19 days. In obedience to the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(Crl.) No.529 of 2021, the State have issued 1 (2007) 13 SCC 606 4 G.O.Ms.No.58, Home (Paroles & HRC) Department, dated 16.03.2023, relating to premature release of the life convicts. Undisputedly, G.O.Ms.58, which was issued on 16.03.2023 is applicable to the convict prisoners herein, who were convicted in the year 2015. For ready reference, relevant guidelines framed under the said G.O., are extracted hereunder: “a. Cases of convicted women prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life, including those governed by Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act No.2 of 1974), who have undergone an actual sentence of three (3) years including the remand period and total sentence of five (5) years including remission as on the cut- off date of respective Phase shall be considered for release. b. Cases of convicted male prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life including those governed by Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act No. 2 of 1974) and who have undergone an actual sentence of seven (7) years including the remand period and total sentence of ten (10) years including remission as on the cut- off date of respective Phase shall be considered for release. c. Cases of the old and decrepit prisoners as defined in Rule 321 (h) of the Andhra Pradesh Prison Rules, 1979, read with G.O.Ms.No.44, Home (Prisons. B2) Department, dated: 16- 03-2007, who become eligible as on the cut-off date of respective Phase shall be considered for release. d. Cases of the convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life including those governed by Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act No. 2 of 1974) aged more than 65 years and have undergone an actual sentence of five (5) years including remand period and total sentence of seven (7) years including remission as on the cut off date of respective Phase shall be considered for release..= 6. As seen from guideline No.(b) referred to supra, the convict prisoners herein fall under the said category. It is the contention of the learned counsel 5 for the Petitioners that the dates of conviction and sentence against their respective husbands were 01.12.2015, 01.12.2015 and 22.04.2015 respectively and the policy which was in existence at that point of time was G.O.Ms.No.58, Home (Paroles & HRC) Department, dated 16.03.2023. As such, the policy which was in existence as on the date of conviction is applicable to consider the case of the convict prisoners for their premature release. 7. It is pertinent to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Jagdish2, while dealing with the remission of life convicts, held as under: “43. The right of the respondent prisoner, therefore, to get his case considered at par with such of his inmates, who were entitled to the benefit of the said policy, cannot be taken away by the policy dated 13.08.2008. This is evident from a bare perusal of the recitals contained in the policies prior to the year 2008, which are referable to Article 161 of the Constitution. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, was absolutely justified in arriving at the conclusion that the case of the respondent was to be considered on the strength of the policy that was existing on the date of his conviction. 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. 44. As per the information furnished by the appellant-State of Haryana, the respondent Jagdish has served more than 14 years (actual) on 12.2.2009 i.e. prior to the date of judgment impugned herein dated 17.2.2009. By now, the respondent has served 2 2010 (4) SCC 216 6 (actual) for more than 15 years. Respondent falls in category 3 of the prisoners as he did not indulge in any organised crime. 45. Accordingly, for the reasons given hereinabove, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court, which is hereby affirmed. The appeal is dismissed accordingly, subject to the direction that the appellant- State Government shall proceed to calculate the sentence for the purpose of consideration of remission in the case of the respondent as per the policy dated 04.02.1993. 53. The right of the respondent prisoner, therefore, to get his case considered at par with such of his inmates, who were entitled to the benefit of the said policy, cannot be taken away by the policy dated 13.08.2008. This is evident from a bare perusal of the recitals contained in the policies prior to the year 2008, which are referable to Article 161 of the Constitution. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, was absolutely justified in arriving at the conclusion that the case of the respondent was to be considered on the strength of the policy that was existing on the date of his conviction.= 8. In Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal vs. State of Bihar and others3, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: <23. This court, on earlier occasion, had grappled with the situation of different remission policies/rules prevailing at different points of the convict’s sentence – i.e., when the policy on the date of conviction, and on the date of consideration for premature release, are different. It has been held that the policy prevailing on the date of the conviction [See State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar, (2021) 9 SCC 292 [para 16]], would be applicable. However, in Jagdish (supra) it was also recognised that if a more liberal policy exists on the date of consideration, the benefit should be provided: <43. […] 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 premature 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 premature release, he should be given benefit thereof.= 3 2023 (3) ALT (Crl.) 104 (SC) 7 9. In Joseph vs. State of Kerala & Others4, the Ho’ble Apex Court held as follows: <[8] Mr. Adolf Mathew, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, challenged the state government's repeated rejection of his plea for premature release. It was pointed out that the remission policy prevailing on the date of the conviction would have to apply. Attention was drawn to Rule 545A of the 1958 Rules which stipulates release can be considered after 14 years: Rule 216(1), 244(2) and 299(c) of the 1958 Rules which state that the inmate shall be released after completion of 20 years of sentence; and the recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) which prescribes mandatory release after 25 years of sentence. Furthermore, even in terms of Rule 377 of the new Prison Rules, 2014, the petitioner is entitled to release after 20 years. It was argued that since the petitioner has not only completed 14 years or 20 years, but even 25 years of actual imprisonment, at this juncture regardless of which rules are applied, it was manifestly illegal to keep him incarcerated in perpetuity. [9] Mr. Mathew strongly opposed the state's policy dated 14.06.2022 (and executive instruction dated 20.04.2022 cited in the state's counter affidavit) which listed certain crimes, the commission of which put the convict beyond the scope for grant of remission. The executive instruction (which explicitly prohibits the release of a prisoner involved in the "murder of a woman"), it was argued - not only came after his completion of 25 years of incarceration, but in any case could not override the statutory provisions. Counsel submitted that the petitioner had a legal right to be considered for remission given the safeguards of a convict under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India: this legal right was guaranteed by the Prison Act, and the Rules framed under it. ***** [34] In the petitioner's case, the 1958 Rules are clear - a life sentence, is deemed to be 20 years of incarceration. After this, the prisoner is entitled to premature release. (See also this court's order dated 11.10.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 276-278/2010.] The guidelines issued by the NHRC pointed out to us by the counsel for the petitioner, are also relevant to consider that of mandating release, after serving 25 years as sentence (even in heinous crimes). At this juncture, redirecting the petitioner who has already undergone over 26 years of incarceration (and over 35 years of punishment with remission). before us to undergo, yet again, consideration before the Advisory Board, and thereafter, the state government for premature release would be a 4 2023 LawSuit (SC) 940 8 cruel outcome, like being granted only a salve to fight a raging fire, in the name of procedure. The grand vision of the rule of law and the idea of fairness is then swept away, at the altar of procedure which this court has repeatedly held to be a "handmaiden of justice". [35] Rule 376 of the 2014 Rules prescribes that prisoners shall be granted remission for keeping peace and good behaviour in jail. As per the records produced by the State, the petitioner has earned over 8 years of remission, thus demonstrating his good conduct in jail. The discussions in the minutes of the meetings of the Jail Advisory Board are also positive and find that he is hardworking, disciplined, and a reformed inmate. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this court is of the opinion, that it would be appropriate to direct the release of the petitioner, with immediate effect. It is ordered accordingly. [36] The writ petition, thus, stands allowed in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.= 10. In the case on hand, the case of the convict prisoner for special remission has not been considered by the Government, in view of the policy in G.O.Ms.No.71, Home (Paroles & HRC) Department, dated 17.04.2025. However, as mentioned supra, the dates of conviction of the life convicts herein were 01.12.2015, 01.12.2015 and 22.04.2015 respectively, for which period, the policy under G.O.Ms.No.58, Home (Paroles & HRC) Department, dated 16.03.2023 is applicable. In view of the judgments referred to supra, the policy which was subsisting as on the date of conviction of the convict prisoner has to be taken into consideration while granting special remission to the individual. The latter policy i.e., G.O.Ms.No.71, Home (Paroles & HRC) Department, dated 17.04.2025 would have prospective operation and thus would not apply to the convict prisoners herein, as they were convicted in the year 2015. 9 11. While dealing with the similar set of facts, the Hon’ble Apex Court in its recent judgment in Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Others5, categorically held as follows: <15.4. In the instant case, the actual imprisonment of twenty years was admittedly completed by the appellant on 09.03.2025 which was without any remission. If that is so, it would imply that the appellant has completed his period of sentence. In fact, the award of the aforesaid sentence was also confirmed by this Court. On completion of twenty years of actual imprisonment on 09.03.2025, the appellant was entitled to be released. The release of the appellant from jail does not depend upon further consideration as to whether he has to be released or not and as to whether remission has to be granted to him or not by the Sentence Review Board. In fact, the Sentence Review Board cannot sit in judgment over what has been judicially determined as the sentence by the High Court which has been affirmed by this Court. There cannot be any further incarceration of the appellant herein from 09.03.2025 onwards. On the other hand, in the instant case, the appellant’s prayer for furlough was refused by the High Court and, thereafter, this Court granted furlough only on 25.06.2025 as he had completed his actual sentence by then, pending consideration of the amended prayer made by the appellant herein on completion of his sentence on 09.03.2025. Therefore, the continuous incarceration of the appellant from 09.03.2025 onwards was illegal. In fact, on 10.03.2025, the appellant ought to have been released from prison as he had completed the sentence imposed on him by the High Court as affirmed by this Court.= 12. In the case on hand, as admitted by the Respondent No.2 in their counter, during the period of imprisonment, the life convicts herein have maintained excellent conduct, have participated in reformation and rehabilitation programs and they have no past criminal record. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, judgments referred to supra, and in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the convict prisoners herein, shall not be deprived of their life or personal liberty. Having been completed more than requisite period of sentence, the convict prisoners are entitled to 5 2025 INSC 969 10 Special Remission, as per G.O.Ms.No.58, Home (Paroles & HRC) Department, dated 16.03.2023, which is said to be in subsistence as on the dates of their conviction. 14. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Respondents are hereby directed to consider the case of the convict prisoners i.e., C.T.No.6006, C.T.No.0006 and C.T.No.005, who have been in District Jail, Vijayawada, Sub Jail, Polavaram and Sub Jail, Polavaram respectively, for special remission by following the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jagdish’s case (supra), within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:04.02.2026 Dinesh 11 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.11022 of 2025 Dt.04.02.2026 Dinesh