SATISH @ SABBE versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

SATISH @ SABBE versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

The executive orders rejecting premature release were quashed because the statutory three-factor test under Section 2 of the UP Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 (antecedents, conduct in prison, likelihood to abstain from crime) was not applied; length of sentence, gravity of offence or age cannot be the sole basis for refusal; since petitioners had no material antecedents, demonstrated good conduct and long incarceration, the Court directed their conditional premature release on probation within two weeks, subject to conditions and recall on misconduct.

Parties
Petitioner: Satish @ Sabbe; Petitioner: Vikky @ Vikendra alias Virendra; Respondent: The State of Uttar Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (crl.) No. 7369 of 2019 (and Connected SLP No. 8326 of 2019) / Disposition by Supreme Court; Petitions Disposed of With Direction for Premature Release on Probation
Outcome
Special Leave Petitions disposed of; petitioners directed to be released on probation under Section 2 of the UP Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938
Legal Topics
Premature Release, Probation, Remission, Sentencing, Judicial Review, Rehabilitation
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Penology Administrative Law Premature Release Probation Remission Sentencing +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Satish @ Sabbe

Petitioner

Vikky @ Vikendra alias Virendra

Petitioner

The State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (crl.) No. 7369 of 2019 (and Connected SLP No. 8326 of 2019) / Disposition by Supreme Court; Petitions Disposed of With Direction for Premature Release on Probation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioners were entitled to premature release under Section 2 of the UP Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938
  2. 2 Whether executive authorities applied the statutory three-factor test (antecedents, conduct in prison, likelihood to abstain from crime) when deciding premature release
  3. 3 Whether factors such as length of sentence, gravity of offence, age or victim apprehensions can be the sole basis to refuse premature release

Ratio Decidendi

The executive orders rejecting premature release were quashed because the statutory three-factor test under Section 2 of the UP Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 (antecedents, conduct in prison, likelihood to abstain from crime) was not applied; length of sentence, gravity of offence or age cannot be the sole basis for refusal; since petitioners had no material antecedents, demonstrated good conduct and long incarceration, the Court directed their conditional premature release on probation within two weeks, subject to conditions and recall on misconduct.

Court Disposition

Special Leave Petitions disposed of; petitioners directed to be released on probation under Section 2 of the UP Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938

Orders

  • Petitioners to be released on probation in terms of Section 2 of the UP Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 within two weeks
  • Respondent-State permitted to impose conditions as it may deem fit to balance public safety with individual liberty