The Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital, ordered the State government to reconsider the case of a life convict, for premature release under the Uttarakhand Permanent Policy, 2022.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay was hearing the petition filed by the petitioner, convicted in a 2005 case involving dacoity and double murder. Represented by Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, challenged his classification as a “contract killer” under Rule 5(xii) of the 2022 Policy, which bars such convicts from release consideration.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no charge or evidence suggesting contract killing. He relied on Supreme Court rulings in Joseph v. State of Kerala 2023 SCC Online SC 1211, Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India (2024) 5 SCC 481, and Rajo v. State of Bihar (2023), to assert that the remission policy in force at the time of conviction, or a more liberal subsequent policy, must apply. It was also pointed out that in 2011, when the petitioner was convicted, Uttarakhand had no remission policy of its own and instead followed Para 198 of the U.P. Jail Manual, 1968, which allows consideration of life convicts after 14 years of imprisonment.
Appearing for the State, Deputy Advocate General J.S. Virk, fairly conceded that no material existed to prove the petitioner was a contract killer and that his conviction was linked to aiding dacoity and destroying evidence, not a contract murder. The State maintained, however, that the 2022 Policy categorization had been applied in a general list of convicts prepared during earlier proceedings.
The Court held that the petitioner’s categorization as a contract killer was without basis and violated his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. It directed the State to place his case before the Permanent Committee constituted under the 2022 Policy within 15 days, with a decision to follow within the next 15 days and to be communicated to him.
The writ petition was retained for further hearing on the larger challenge to the validity of Rule 5 of the 2022 Policy.
Appearances:
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram, learned counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State