The Calcutta High Court in the case Anirudha Halder & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal observed and has directed the State Government for releasing two life convicts who were languishing in jail for 18 years, being on premature release, the court denied the same on the ground that it did not receive the opinion of the Presiding Judge of the court before or through which the conviction was being held.
The Single bench headed by Justice Bibek Chaudhuri in the case observed that under Section 432(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the court is of the opinion of Presiding Judge of the court before or by which the conviction was being held or confirmed is necessary. Therefore, the High Court perused the judgment itself, since the same was absent in the case.
Further, the petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure reading with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the premature release of them under Section 432 and Section 433 of CrPC.
The petitioner in the plea contended that since 2005, they were in custody and at present the petitioner No.1, who is aged about 74 years and the petitioner No.2 is aged about 84 years and except the present case, the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents.
Further, it has also been submitted that petitioner no.2 carried on his academic activities from the correctional home and the petitioner has obtained the Master Degree in English from the Calcutta University and the petitioner was also entrusted to teach other convicts in the correctional home.
The petitioner in the plea highlighted for premature release was favourably considered by the State Sentence Review Board, SSRB, but they were not able to release by the appropriate government as the government did not receive the opinion of the Presiding Judge of the court before or by which the conviction of the petitioner was had or confirmed.
The said court also relied upon the judgement of the Co-ordinate bench of Calcutta High Court, wherein the court dismissed the opinion of SSRB which refused a prayer for remission of sentence and for premature release of a person as the person was suffering sentence for about 17 years.
The court noted in the case that the opinion of the Judge Presiding was not being available with the SSRB and the sentence of the petitioner was confirmed by the High Court.
Further, it has also been noted by the court that the entire case being against the petitioners was based on circumstantial evidence and there being no reason for refusal of premature release of the petitioners.
