Meghalaya High Court
(Currently In Jail) vs Shillong on 16 July, 2026
2026:MLHC:735
Serial No.12
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
W.P. (Crl.) No.5 of 2026 Date of Decision : 16.07.2026
Shri Suraj Gupta
S/o K. Gupta
Aged about 40 years
R/o Japishjiya, North
Lakhimpur District, Assam,
(Currently in jail)
..... Petitioner
-VERSUS
1. State of Meghalaya Represented
by Commissioner Secretary,
Home (Police) Department
Govt. of Meghalaya.
2. The Inspector General of Police
(prison) Government of
Meghalaya, East Khasi Hills
District.
3. The Superintendent, District
Prison Correctional Home
Shillong.
.....Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Ms. S. Nongsiej, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. D. Chullai, AAG. With
Ms. R. Colney, Adv.
Page 1 of 6
2026:MLHC:735
Judgment and Order (Oral)
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned decision
dated 04.02.2026 of the Sentence Review Committee rejecting the application
for remission of sentence of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was convicted by the Adhoc Judge, Fast Track Court,
West Garo Hills District, Tura in Sessions Case No. 7 of 2026 u/s 302/364-A
and was sentenced to life imprisonment vide order dated 10.12.2014. He was
also convicted u/s 201 IPC and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment.
The conviction and sentence of the petitioner was upheld in Crl. A. No. 2 of
2015 by this High Court vide judgment dated 14.05.2019.
3. The materials on record reveals that the petitioner was detained at
District Prison and Correctional Home, Tura on 17.06.2006 and was
transferred to District Prison and Correctional Home, Shillong on 12.08.2020.
As per the record, the petitioner had served 19 years 7 months 18 days of
imprisonment as on the date of consideration of his application for remission
by the Sentence Review Committee.
4. Ms. S. Nongseij, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the rejection of prayer of the petitioner for premature release is highly
illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as the same was not considered in accordance
with the existing Remission Policy of the State and also the guidelines laid
down by the Apex Court. She submits that the Sentence Review Committee
mechanically rejected the prayer of the petitioner only on the ground that the
petitioner was 40 years old, physically fit and his potential to commit further
crime cannot be ruled out. She submits that the conclusion of the Sentence
Review Committee about the apprehension of commission of further crime by
the petitioner in future is not based on any materials on record. She further
contends the recommendation of the Superintendent of District Prison and
Page 2 of 6
2026:MLHC:735
Correctional Home, Shillong, which was in favour of the petitioner, was
totally ignored by the Sentence Review Committee without assigning any
reason. She submits that age cannot be sole consideration for deciding an
application for remission. Relying on the decision of Satish @ Sabbe V. The
State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) INSC 567, the learned counsel submits that any
assessment regarding predilection to commit crime upon release must be
based on antecedents and conduct of the prisoner while in jail and not merely
on his age. On the same point, the decision of Zahid Hussein and Others V.
State of W.B. and Another, (2001) 3 SCC 750 is also relied on. Further, the
case of Laxman Naskar V. Union of India and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 595 is
cited by the learned counsel to contend that the prayer of premature release
must be decided as per the Rules/Policy. She, therefore, submits that the
impugned decision requires interference by this Court and the respondents
may be directed to release the petitioner.
5. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Ms. R. Colney, learned GA,
on the other hand, submits that the rejection of the prayer for premature release
of the petitioner is not solely based on the ground of age, but also on the
ground of commission of gruesome crime of kidnapping and murder of a 9
(nine) years old boy for ransom which had shaken the society. By drawing
attention of this Court to clauses 7 and 10 of the Remission Policy, 2026, the
learned AAG submits that the finding of the committee is in tune with the
criteria laid down in the Policy as the nature of the crime and its impact on
society, more particularly, on victims of the offence was taken into
consideration. He submits that the petitioner cannot seek remission as a matter
of right and power to remit a sentence is discretionary. He submits that grant
or non-grant of remission is the prerogative to be exercised by the competent
authority and it is not for the convict to claim release as a matter of course.
Taking into consideration the overall factors, the learned AAG submits that
there is no illegality or infirmity in the decision taken by the Sentence Review
Page 3 of 6
2026:MLHC:735
Committee and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his
submission, the learned AAG places reliance on the decisions of Ranjan V.
Home Department of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (2019) 14 SCC 114, Bilkis Yakub
Rasool V. Union of India and Ors., (2024) 5 SCC 481 and Mafabhai Motibhai
Sagar V. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2024) SCC Online SC 2982.
6. A perusal of the impugned decision dated 04.02.2026 would show that
the Sentence Review Committee while considering the application of the
petitioner decided not to recommend the premature release of the petitioner
primarily on the ground of his age, which was 40 years, and his physical
fitness. It appears that the finding of the Committee that “the potential of the
convict to commit further crime in future cannot be ruled out” was largely
influenced by the age factor and physical fitness of the petitioner and no other
reason. Though the Committee had taken cognizance of the fact that the crime
committed by the petitioner was heinous in nature which had shaken the
society, it appears that the recommendation of the Superintendent, District
Prison and Correctional Home, Shillong with regard to the good conduct,
maturity as an adult (in speech and deeds) and interest to upkeep peace and
harmony during the period of petitioner’s incarceration was ignored without
there being any reason or cause.
7. In Zahid Hussain (Supra), at para 14, the Apex Court held:-
“14. We may state here that the jail authority
recommended premature release of the writ
petitioners. In our opinion, the conduct of the
petitioners while in jail is an important factor to be
considered as to whether they have lost their
potentiality in committing crime due to long period of
detention. The views of the witnesses who were
examined during trial and the people of the locality
cannot determine whether the petitioners would be a
danger to the locality, if released prematurely. This
has to be considered keeping in view the conduct of the
petitioners during the period they were undergoing
sentence. Age alone cannot be a factor while
considering whether the petitioners still have
Page 4 of 6
2026:MLHC:735potentiality of committing crime or not as it will
depend on changes in mental attitude during
incarceration.”
8. Further, in Satish @ Sabbe (Supra), The Apex Court while reaffirming
the above proposition in Zahida Hussain (Supra) case, at para 18, held:-
“18. It would be gainsaid that length of the sentence or
the gravity of the original crime can’t be the sole basis
for refusing premature release. Any assessment
regarding predilection to commit crime upon release
must be based on antecedents as well as conduct of the
prisoner while in jail, and not merely on his age or
apprehensions of the victims and witnesses. As per the
State’s own affidavit, the conduct of both petitioners
has been more than satisfactory. They have no material
criminal antecedents, and have served almost 16 years
in jail (22 years including remission). Although being
about 54 years in jail and 43 years old, they still have
substantial years of life remaining, but that doesn’t
prove that they retain a propensity for committing
offences. The respondent-State’s repeated and
circuitous reliance on age does nothing but defeat the
purpose of remission and probation, despite the
petitioners having met all statutory requirements for
premature release.”
9. There is no dispute to the assertion of the learned AAG that a convict
cannot seek remission as a matter of right and it is the discretion of the
competent authority of the State to take a decision, but at the same time it
cannot be said that such discretion can be exercised in an arbitrary manner.
The law laid down by the Apex Court in the above noted cases mandate that
the antecedent as well as conduct of the convict while in jail must be given
due weightage while taking a decision on the premature release of the convict.
Age, physical fitness of the convict and gravity of the crime committed cannot
be the only factors for consideration. Any assessment with regard to the
potential of the convict to commit crime in future would depend on changes
in mental attitude during incarceration.
Page 5 of 6
2026:MLHC:735
10. It is clear from the impugned decision dated 04.02.2026 that the
recommendation of the Superintendent of District Prison and Correctional
Home, Shillong was taken note of by the Sentence Review Committee. The
contents of the recommendation of the Superintendent, as reflected in the
impugned decision dated 04.02.2026, with regard to conduct, maturity and
interest of the petitioner during the period of incarceration was favourable to
the petitioner. However, the Sentence Review Committee has not assigned
any reason or justification for not acting on the basis of recommendation of
the Superintendent, District Prison and Correctional Home, Shillong. The
impugned decision, as such, is not tenable in the eye of law.
11. For what has been discussed above, the impugned decision dated
04.02.2026 of the Sentence Review Committee with respect to the petitioner
is set aside and quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Sentence Review
Committee for reconsideration of the premature release of the petitioner in the
light of the observation made above and also in terms of the related decisions
of the Apex Court and the Remission Policy of the State. The Sentence
Review Committee shall reconsider and decide the matter within a period of
30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment and Order.
12. With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. No Costs.
Judge
Meghalaya
16.07.2026
“Ahinandan,PS”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ABHINANDAN KUMAR Page 6 of 6
Date: 2026.07.16 19:19:32 IST
