PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has set aside the State Sentence Review Board’s decision to reject the plea for early release of life convict Nafiyaj Shaikh Mamlekar in the 2006 Mandar Surlakar murder case, and directed the Board to reconsider it.
Mamlekar and three others are serving life terms for kidnapping and killing a teenage friend in 2006. The Children’s Court convicted them in 2014 for murder, conspiracy, kidnapping for ransom and destroying evidence. The High Court upheld the conviction in 2019.
In his petition before Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta, Mamlekar said the Board had rejected his case at its meeting on December 4, 2024, only because of the crime’s seriousness, without considering his conduct in jail or the reformative steps he had taken.
His lawyer, Advocate Sahil Sardessai, said the North Goa District Magistrate and the Probation Officer had recommended his release, while the Jail Superintendent described him as “cordial, cooperative and obedient.” During nearly 19 years in custody, Mamlekar completed courses in computer applications, tourism studies and entrepreneurship, took part in art exhibitions, and was assigned different work duties inside jail.
Sardessai added that the Board relied instead on the Inspector General of Prisons’ objections, recalling the brutality of the crime ” kidnapping for ransom, torture and burning the minor to death. It also noted that the victim’s father opposed the release, and deferred Mamlekar’s case for another year.
Additional Public Prosecutor Pravin Faldessai argued that though the government has the discretion to suspend or reduce a sentence, courts can review decisions if they are found to be arbitrary.
The High Court said that while the gravity of the crime was relevant, the Board had not applied the criteria under Rule 403 of the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006, which require considering a convict’s behaviour in custody, chances of reform, and recommendations from jail and probation authorities.
The Bench also noted that the Board appeared to have acted under pressure from the victim’s family and ignored favourable reports from the jail authorities and the Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour, which had assessed Mamlekar’s emotional maturity and stress tolerance as satisfactory. It ordered the Board to examine his case afresh in its next meeting.
