Nand Kishore @ Nanda v. The State (N.C.T. of Delhi)

1. The Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuing Orders to the Respondent for premature release of Petitioner, Sh. Nand Kishore @ Nanda, on the sentence already undergone on account of his exemplary conduct was filed; however, during the pendency of the Petition, the Petitioner has died on 11.05.2024, a fact which has been confirmed by the Respondent.

2. While it is not denied that the present Petition on account of demise of the Petitioner has become infructuous, but Crl. M.A. No.16939/2024 under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed on behalf of the Applicant through his brother, with the Prayers that the affidavit of the Respondent be called on the questions regarding inordinate delay in grant of premature release of the Petitioner and for repeated rejection by the Sentence Review Board without providing any reasons whatsoever. Reliance has been placed on Joseph vs. State of Kerala, W.P. (Crl.) No.520/2022, decided on 21.09.2023 by the Apex Court.

3. It is submitted in the Application that the Petitioner was enlarged on emergency parole and had made substantial attempts to rehabilitate himself in society. He had assisted two Law Chambers in their administrative office work and the grant of premature release to the Petitioner should have been ensured for the complete, uninterrupted and permanent rehabilitation of the Petitioner.

4. He was the first time convict and had undergone actual imprisonment of about 28 years. He had availed 7 Paroles and 27 Furloughs and had never misused his liberty during the period of Parole or Furlough. He had completed maximum threshold of incarceration contemplated under the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018 and had maintained consistent good conduct without exception.

5. In the main Petition, the Petitioner had asserted that his representation for premature release since he had completed 17 years and 5 months of incarceration was forwarded to Sentence Review Board but was dismissed despite the conduct of the Petitioner being completely satisfactory during his judicial custody.

6. SRB completely disregarded the long incarceration of the Petitioner of around 20 years in actual and around 28 years with remission while rejecting his Application for premature release.

7. The Petitioner was 64 years old and was in dire need of constant medical attention. He had a medical history wherein he had undergone an operation of Hernia at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital in 2010. He later suffered from Prostrate and stomach issues leaving him in need of constant medical attention. Despite his critical medical condition and he being on death bed, he was not granted a premature release. He subsequently died on 11.05.2024. This emphasises the grave and urgent circumstances surrounding the Petitioner’s plea for premature release, which had not been granted.

8. It is, therefore, imperative upon the State to answer the following queries on affidavit:-

25 years of maximum incarceration as reiterated in Joseph v. State of Kerela, SRB minutes of Prem Chand S/o Sh. Sher Singh, NHRC Policy and the 2004 guidelines?

State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh & Ors., 2017(13) SCC 606 and Surender v. State of Haryana, 2022 Pb & Hry.550 whereby the classification in respect of prolonged incarceration for convicts convicted for multiple murders has been considered bad in law since the number of murders committed cannot be considered as grounds for more severe punishments?

9. A prayer is, therefore, made that an Affidavit of the Respondent be called to answer the questions stated in the Application, to explain the inordinate delay in grant of premature release to the Petitioner who has died while his Petition was pending consideration.

10. Submissions heard and record perused.