Madras High Court will no longer hear interim bail pleas of convicts awaiting government decision on premature release

The Madras High Court has put an end to an “impermissible” practice followed by it for long, of granting interim bail to convicts until their plea for premature release gets considered by the State government. It has held that both the relief of premature release as well as suspension of sentence, in the interregnum, can be granted only by the government and not by the courts.

A Division Bench of Justices N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman passed the ruling while disposing of a batch of writ petitions filed for the premature release of convicts A. Sarfudheen, M. Mohamed Rafiq, M. Abuthahir and L.M. Hakkim represented by their counsel M. Mohamed Saifulla. The petitioners had also filed sub applications urging the court to grant them interim bail.

On finding that the practice of granting interim bail in such matters had been in vogue in the High Court since 2016, the Division Bench raised doubts over the legality of such a course adopted by the court and requested senior counsel R. John Sathyan to assist the Bench as an amicus curiae in deciding the issue. They also heard Additional Public Prosecutor E. Raj Thilak for the State.

After going through the legal provisions as well as the Supreme Court verdicts on the issue, the Bench pointed out that the power of the High Court to suspend a sentence and grant bail while hearing appeals against conviction could not be confused with the suspension of sentence of a convict whose conviction as well as the quantum of sentence had attained finality.

Once a conviction, as well as sentence, had attained finality, it was only the State government that could consider the plea for premature release and also for suspension of sentence by exercising its powers under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagaraik Suraksha Sanhita. And the procedures for it had been laid down under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules of 1982, the judges said.

Govt. cannot shirk its responsibility

Further, observing that the government could not shirk its responsibility by simply conveying its ‘no objection’ to grant of interim bail by the courts, the judges said, the State was bound to redress the grievances of the convicts by considering their plea for premature release, as well as temporary release until the grant of final relief, in a time bound manner.

The judges dismissed all sub applications filed by the present batch of writ petitioners seeking interim bail and directed the High Court Registry to, henceforth, not entertain any petition seeking interim bail when the plea for premature release of convicts remains pending with the government. They also directed the government to consider the petitioners’ request for premature release within three months.

The Bench led by Justice Sathishkumar made it clear that the courts could not issue any positive direction to the government to release a convict prematurely and that it was upto the government to exercise its discretionary power by following the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court and the elaborate procedures that had been contemplated under the 1982 Rules.