If Convict Remains 'Unreformed' After 32 Yrs, State Has Failed Its Duty: Calcutta High Court Orders Reconsideration Of Premature Release

The Calcutta High Court has directed the Judicial Department to reconsider the plea for premature release of a life convict incarcerated for 32 years, observing that the rejection was merely speculative.

The division bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray emphasized that jails were renamed 'correctional homes' to reform offenders and reintegrate them into mainstream society. However, if release has to be denied even after 32 years incarceration, it reflects that State has failed to discharge its obligation.

The bench observed;

“Jails” have been renamed as “Correctional Homes” with the high hope that inmates serving sentence therein for various offences will be brought back into the mainstream of society after undergoing necessary reforms and with this objective several corrective measures have been introduced. However, if after almost 32 years of serving a sentence, the petitioner's prayer for premature release is refused by the Judicial Department, the immediate impression is that the State has failed to discharge its obligation to reform the convict in the proper perspective

The petitioner along with his brother, was convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment by the Trial Court in April 1995 which was affirmed in 2007. The petitioner has been in custody for 32 years.

His prayer for premature release was considered in 2022, wherein the State Sentence Review Board favoured him, but the Judicial Department refused the prayer. The Judicial Department reasoned that the petitioner was 51 years of age and had the capacity to commit further offences.

Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ application, but the same was also dismissed, noting that since the Judicial Department refused to approve the recommendation, he cannot be released.

The court noted that there was no adverse report against the petitioner from the correctional home. The bench observed that the co-accused, the petitioner's brother, was granted premature release in 2012.

The court observed that the petitioner has been incarcerated for 32 years and cannot be equated with a normal person of 51 years. The bench held,

"Therefore, the observation of the Judicial Department which was made without taking into consideration the health report of the petitioner cannot be said to be a sound one and on such ground alone it cannot say that as he is physically fit and there are chances of the petitioner committing further offence if released prematurely".

The bench further rejected the logic that since the petitioner was 51, he could commit similar or other offences. The court noted that the conclusion was more speculative than logical.

The bench added, "It is quite possible that after 32 years of incarceration, the petitioner is a reformed person".

The court noted that the Judicial Department did not consider the petition for premature release in proper perspective. The department failed to examine the health report of the petitioner, and without ascertaining his physical ability, the observation that he could commit further offences was not based on sound reasoning.

Thus, the bench quashed the opinion/order of the Judicial Department and directed the Principal Secretary to reconsider the prayer. Accordingly, the order of the Single Judge was also set aside.

Case Title: BABULAL JADAB v STATE [MAT/1554/2025]

Click here to read/download the Order