MANDAR SURLAKAR MURDER CASE
PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has set aside the State government’s decision rejecting the premature release plea of Rohan Pai Dhungat, convicted in the 2006 Mandar Surlakar murder case, holding that the government failed to consider the State Sentence Review (SSR) Board’s recommendation.
The Division Bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Ashish Chavan directed the government to reconsider Dhungat’s application within two weeks under the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006.
“In our opinion, the approach of the government in this case was erroneous and unjustified... The impugned order dated August 20, 2025 passed by respondent no.1 (State) is set aside. The application of the petitioner (Rohan Dhungat) for premature release shall be considered afresh based on the recommendation of the State Sentence Review (SSR) Board,” reads the order.
It further directed the State government to also take into account the recommendation of the Presiding Officer of the Convicting Court, adding that it, however, cannot be the sole criterion for consideration of the case for premature release of the petitioner.
“Due weightage has to be given to the recommendation given by the SSR Board. The case of the petitioner shall be considered under the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of two weeks from today. In case an adverse order is passed by the State government, the petitioner is at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law,” it added.
In its observations, the Bench noted the SSR strongly recommended the premature release of the petitioner and had taken into consideration his tender age at the time of his arrest, the actual years that he has spent in prison.
“The Board has also considered the fact that he was released on parole/furlough on 24 occasions, and nothing adverse has been reported against him on any of these occasions. There was a favourable report of the IPHB. The district magistrate has recommended his release. The probation officer has recommended his release. The IG Prisons has recommended his release,” the Bench said.
“All this was considered by the SSR. They also considered the social history of the petitioner, conduct of the petitioner in the prison, response to training and treatment, his attitude and character, etc. They importantly considered the chance of the crime being repeated in the future. After all these considerations, they unanimously recommended the premature release of the petitioner.”
The Bench then slammed the government for ‘totally ignoring’ all this exercise while passing the order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for premature release.
Dhungat had argued in his petition that the government erred in rejecting his plea and that the recommendation of the SSR was totally ignored, though the State government needed to consider it.
“The State mechanically referred to the Presiding Officer of the Court's recommendation wherein a recommendation against the petitioner was noted,” the petition had said.
