Convict's premature release case
PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa on Thursday refused to allow the intervention application filed by the father of murder victim Mandar Surlakar in the ongoing proceedings over convict Rohan Pai Dhungat’s premature release plea, but allowed him to assist the State’s case and place written submissions on record.
The Division Bench of Justice Neela Gokhale and Justice Amit Jamsandekar observed that a formal intervention was not required as the State was already representing the interests involved in the matter.
“Intervention is not required. State is there to take care of your interests. We will hear you, but not allow the intervention, because we don’t want to stretch this matter. You can assist the government,” the Bench told the deceased’s father, Deepak Surlakar, during the hearing.
The counsel appearing for Dhungat submitted that the issue of premature release had earlier reached the Supreme Court, where it was held that once the convict completed the requisite period of incarceration, his case would have to be considered for premature release.
The counsel further submitted that Dhungat had now completed 14 years of sentence, including the period spent on parole. He submitted that the State Sentence Review process had recommended consideration of his release and various reports were called for. However, the Presiding Officer of the Children’s Court, which had convicted him, opposed the release, following which the State government rejected the plea.
The counsel further pointed out that the High Court had, last year, set aside the government’s order and directed a fresh consideration of the case.
After hearing the parties, the Bench recorded, “... In view of the aforesaid order, even in the present matter, the request for intervention is not granted. However, the victim’s father is permitted to assist the Additional Public Prosecutor at the time of hearing and is at liberty to file written submissions, if so advised.” The matter has been adjourned to July 2.
In December last year, the High Court quashed the State government’s August 20, 2025 order rejecting Dhungat’s premature release application, holding that the government had failed to properly consider the recommendation of the SSR Board.
The then Division Bench directed the government to reconsider the application under the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006, observing that the recommendation of the convicting court could not be the sole basis for rejecting the plea.
