Allahabad HC Quashes Governor's Refusal of Premature Release After Jail Record Was Misread by Two Years

A Division Bench found the Governor's order under Article 161 recorded the petitioner's imprisonment as two years when the jail report showed four years and six months, making the refusal of premature release unsustainable.

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has quashed an order by which the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, exercising constitutional power under Article 161, refused to remit the sentence of Ram Pratap Singh, a convict in District Jail Fatehpur. The bench, comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena, found that the impugned order was vitiated by a manifest error: it recorded the petitioner's period of incarceration as 2 years and 6 days without remission, whereas the jail superintendent's own report certified 4 years, 6 months, and 6 days. The court directed the State Government to decide the premature release plea afresh within one month. The judgment was delivered by Justice J.J. Munir.

Conviction, Appeals, and the Premature Release Proposal

Ram Pratap Singh was tried alongside one Anant Man Singh before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Fatehpur, in Sessions Trial No. 569 of 1996, arising out of Crime No. 91 of 1996, Police Station Hussainganj, District Fatehpur. The charge was under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. On 26 November 2002, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted Singh and sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000, with one month's simple imprisonment in default.

Singh filed Criminal Appeal No. 5185 of 2002 before the Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed on 5 March 2019. He then approached the Supreme Court by way of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 6467 of 2019; that petition was dismissed on 29 July 2019. His conviction thus attained finality.

The jail authorities sent a proposal for premature release to the District Magistrate, Fatehpur, on 3 September 2022. The District Probation Officer, Fatehpur, forwarded it to prison headquarters on 13 October 2022. The proposal was kept pending. In February 2025, Singh's counsel addressed a reminder to the jail superintendent, who in turn wrote to the Director General of Police and Inspector General, Prisons Administration and Reform Services, Lucknow, on 23 February 2025.

In the application dated 22 February 2025, Singh stated that he was about 64 years old, suffering from high blood pressure, diabetes, kidney disease, and prostate disease, and had served more than half his sentence. Medical records from District Male Hospital, Fatehpur, on file noted three renal cysts and difficulty in urination.

What the Jail Report Said and What the Governor's Order Recorded

The jail report submitted by the Superintendent, District Jail, Fatehpur, dated 23 February 2025, certified that Singh had served 4 years, 6 months, and 6 days without remission and 5 years and 4 months with remission, against a total sentence of seven years. The report further certified his conduct as satisfactory.

Despite this, the order dated 26 June 2025 — passed by a Joint Secretary, Department of Uttar Pradesh Prisons Administration and Reform Services, communicating the Governor's decision — stated that Singh had served only 2 years and 6 days without remission and 2 years, 1 month, and 27 days with remission. The order also noted that both the District Magistrate, Fatehpur, and the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur, had not recommended premature release. On that basis, the Governor declined remission.

The order additionally recorded Singh's age as 61 years, whereas the jail report placed his age at 63 years, 8 months, and 5 days.

The Petitioner's Challenge Before the Division Bench

Counsel for Singh, Mr. Syed Mohammad Jafer Husain, argued that the impugned order was passed in complete disregard of the jail report, producing a finding on the period of detention that had no basis in the record. He further submitted that under sub-Rule (iii) of Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Rules, 1938, a convict serving a term sentence is eligible for consideration of premature release once he has completed one-third of the total sentence without remission. Singh had served well over half. Counsel pointed out that the order said nothing adverse about his conduct or about the likelihood of his repeating the offence, and that even his age had been incorrectly noted.

The State, represented by Mr. Ghanshyam Kumar, Additional Government Advocate-I, filed a counter affidavit. The bench observed that the counter affidavit offered no explanation for the discrepancy in the period of detention. Paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit merely referred to the jail superintendent's letters of 3 September 2022 and 23 February 2025, noting that conduct was certified as “normal with punishments being zero” and later as “satisfactory with five hard warnings.” The State said nothing to justify or address the core error.

The Bench's Reasoning: Arbitrary Exercise of a Constitutional Power

The Division Bench acknowledged that the power to grant premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution is a sovereign executive power vested in the Governor, distinct from the statutory power of the State Government under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Yet the bench held that this constitutional power cannot be exercised arbitrarily.

The court found that the impugned order recorded a period of incarceration of 2 years and 6 days without remission, when the jail superintendent's own certified report placed the figure at 4 years, 6 months, and 6 days. The bench described this as “a manifest illegality” and an “error apparent on the face of record.” It reasoned that if the correct period of detention had informed the decision-maker's mind, “the conclusion would possibly have been otherwise.”

The court also took note of the non-recommendation by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, but observed that neither the impugned order nor the State's return disclosed any reasons for those non-recommendations. If those reports were no more than the ipse dixit of the officers, fresh reasoned comments would have to be obtained from them before a fresh decision could be taken.

On the eligibility threshold, the bench pointed out that Rule 4(iii) of the Rules of 1938 requires only that a convict serve one-third of the total sentence without remission before his case becomes eligible for consideration. Singh had served more than half his seven-year sentence without remission. The misreading of the detention period meant he was effectively treated as ineligible at the threshold stage — a conclusion that could not stand.

The bench also observed that the impugned order took no note of the likelihood of recidivism and entirely ignored the satisfactory conduct certificate. These are material considerations under the Rules and the remission policy.

Order

The Division Bench allowed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17372 of 2025. The impugned order dated 26 June 2025, passed by the State Government and communicating the Governor's decision, was quashed. The matter was remitted to the Government for a fresh decision on Singh's premature release plea within one month of receipt of a copy of the order.

The court directed that a copy of the order be communicated to the Principal Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Prisons Administration and Reform Services, Lucknow, through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, by the Registrar (Compliance).