PANAJI
In a major relief to rape-murder convict Mahanand Naik, the High Court of Bombay at Goa has set aside the trial court’s order denying eligibility for premature release.
The Division Bench of Justice M S Karnik and Justice Nivedita Mehta also directed the Sentence Review Board to reassess his application for early release.
Naik had last month moved the High Court challenging the Sessions Court’s order denying him the right to set off his sentence, while observing he was not entitled to any set-off benefits having been convicted in a 2009 rape case. Naik also contested the order of the Sentence Review Board denying his premature release on the grounds that he was falling short of 14 years of actual imprisonment.
During the hearing, Naik’s legal counsel Dolorosa Tulkar submitted that, in view of the provisions of Section 428 of the CrPC, denial of the benefit of set-off is contrary to the well-established principles of law. The Court observed that the CrPC is clear that “what is to be set off is the period of detention, if any, undergone by the convict during the investigation, enquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction.”
It further stated that the convict is given the right to reckon the period of his sentence of imprisonment from the date he was in jail as an undertrial prisoner.
“Therefore, in view of the mandate of Section 428 CrPC and the observations of the Supreme Court in Bhagirath versus Delhi Administration in the context of granting set-off, we have no hesitation in interfering with the order passed by the trial court limited to the denial of the benefit of set-off to the petitioner. Consequently, the observations of the trial court that the petitioner is not entitled to any set-off are set aside,” reads the order.
“The Sentence Review Board is to reconsider the application of the petitioner for premature release in terms of Goa Prison Rules 2021 read with Section 433 A of the CrPC, after taking into consideration that the petitioner is entitled to set-off in terms of Section 428 CrPC in the Sessions Case,” it said.
