Supreme Court Quashes High Court Order and Directs Release After Finding Post‑remission Incarceration Under Prisoners Act Sufficed

A bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih heard an appeal by a life‑convict challenging the Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana’s order dismissing his revision petition against conviction under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988. The Court considered whether the appellant’s sentence under the Prisoners Act should continue to bar his release after remission on the main life sentence and whether a 2012 amendment to the Act applied to offences committed in 2010.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order dated 9th May 2024 and directed release of the appellant, subject to his being not required in any other case. The Court held that the amendment to Section 9 of the Prisoners Act, which came into force on 1 October 2012 and prescribed a minimum two‑year sentence, was not applicable because the offence and sentence in the present case predated the amendment. The Court noted that the State did not contend habitual non‑reporting by the appellant and that the appellant had already undergone additional incarceration after remission which, in the Court’s view, sufficed. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In the facts of the case, we therefore find that the sentence already undergone would subserve the ends of justice for the offence punishable under the Prisoners Act, 1988." The Court also stated that "the said amendment would not be applicable in the facts of the present case" and directed that "he is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case."

Background

The dispute arose from an FIR registered in January 2005 in which the appellant was convicted on 8 February 2007 for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC in Sessions Case No. 5 of 2005; the conviction and life sentence were affirmed by the High Court on 6 February 2009. The appellant was released on parole for six weeks on 21 April 2010 but failed to surrender within the prescribed period; he was arrested on 30 June 2010. An FIR dated 17 June 2010 (No. 224) charged him under Sections 8 and 9 of the Prisoners Act, 1988 for non‑surrender. He was convicted on 11/13 November 2010 and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment; his appeal against that sentence was dismissed on 25 November 2013 and his revision petition was dismissed by the High Court on 9 May 2024.

The appellant obtained remission in respect of the main Section 302 sentence by order dated 26 September 2024, but could not avail the remission because of the sentence under the Prisoners Act. Counsel for the appellant argued that the additional imprisonment already undergone after remission and the timing of the offence rendered the 2012 amendment inapplicable and warranted release. The State relied on the 2012 amendment which substituted in Section 9 a provision that the maximum three‑year term "shall not be less than two years," contending the appeal lacked merit. The Supreme Court accepted the temporal argument, observed that the amendment could not be applied retrospectively to an offence committed and sentenced in 2010, and recorded that there was no material to show habitual non‑reporting by the appellant. Finding that the additional incarceration of approximately ten months following remission would "subserve the ends of justice," the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned High Court order and directed immediate release subject to other legal requirements. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 475 Case Title: Karan Singh v. The State of Haryana Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Counsel for the State (name not specified in the judgment)