Safiya Malik

The High Court of Rajasthan Division Bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Anand Sharma directed the premature release of a life convict who had been imprisoned for killing his father, after setting aside the State Advisory Committee’s refusal to recommend his release. Acting on a letter received from the Central Jail at Udaipur, the Bench treated it as a petition and appointed an amicus curiae to represent the prisoner. Relying on the amicus report, which stated that the prisoner’s mental condition was presently stable and that his family was prepared to accept and look after him, the Court concluded that the earlier view describing him as mentally unstable and unwanted at home could not stand and ordered his release.

The petition originated as a letter received from the Central Jail, Udaipur, wherein the convict Mahendra Kumar sought premature release. The Court appointed an Amicus Curiae to represent him. As recorded, the petitioner had been convicted on 28.02.2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Banswara, for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. He had served nearly 22 years, inclusive of jail and State remissions. The petitioner’s case for premature release was earlier placed before the Advisory Committee, which in its meeting dated 02.01.2025 rejected his request. The rejection was based on concerns noted by the Committee that the petitioner was mentally unstable, posed a possible threat to his family as the conviction was for the murder of his father, and that the family allegedly did not express willingness to accept him.

Also Read: One-Time Settlement No Ground To Quash Loan Fraud Prosecution; Economic Offences Affect Public Interest Beyond Bank Loss: Supreme Court Restores Criminal Proceedings In ₹52.5 Crore Case

Pursuant to directions dated 28.10.2025, the Amicus Curiae visited the Central Jail and interacted with the petitioner. A detailed report on his mental state, conduct, medication, and family willingness was filed. The report also noted statements of a designated inmate assisting the petitioner. The State filed a detailed reply supporting the factual position regarding sentence undergone and remission earned, and the legal parameters applicable under Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006. The opposing submissions of the State did not dispute the factual findings recorded in the Amicus report.

The Court recorded the contents of the Amicus Curiae’s report, noting the verbatim findings. It stated that the report recorded “the petitioner is physically stable; however, due to underlying mental health concerns, the jail administration has been administering regular medical treatment.” It further noted the statement that the petitioner “takes prescribed medication consistently, and performs assigned tasks diligently” and that he maintained “a calm and composed demeanor with fellow inmates and staff.” The Court also recorded the portion of the report documenting the petitioner’s functional memory and clarity where he recalled his brother’s mobile number, reflecting “functional memory, cognitive clarity, and mental responsiveness.”

The Court noted the petitioner’s expressed desire for reintegration, citing the statement “please send me home once,” and observed the report’s conclusion that “with continued medication and familial support, he is capable of living a normal and stable life.” It further recorded that during the interaction, the brother Mohan confirmed willingness to accept the petitioner and extend necessary care, and that “the jail administration, fellow inmates, and the petitioner’s family members appeared pleased and supportive of the prospect of his early release.”

The Bench stated that in view of this material, “the mental condition of the convict-petitioner is stable and the brother of the petitioner Mohan has agreed to take him at his house and further, he has mentioned that he will take necessary care of his brother.”

The Court examined Rules 8(2)(i), 11 and 12 of the 2006 Rules, noting that a life convict is eligible only after serving “14 years of actual imprisonment… on the condition that such a prisoner shall also have to earn a minimum of 4 years of remission.” It recorded that the petitioner served 14 years actual imprisonment and, after applying the notification dated 12.04.2024, his remission stood at “three years and nine months.”

Also Read: Consenting Majors In Live-In Relationship Entitled To Protection Even If Male Is Below 21 Years : Rajasthan High Court Directs Police Nodal Officer To Decide Couple’s Protection Plea

The Bench stated that the Advisory Committee’s rejection was “not very convincing,” particularly in light of the report establishing the petitioner’s mental stability and the family’s willingness to accept him, concluding that “there is no threat to the family as such if the convict-petitioner is released on a premature basis.”

The Court held that “the letter petition succeeds and the Advisory Committee’s order dated 08.04.2025 is quashed and set-aside.” It directed that “the convict-petitioner is ordered to be released on premature basis.”

Before concluding, the Bench recorded appreciation for the efforts of the Amicus Curiae, stating that he “visited Central Jail, Udaipur and taken pains to meet the convict-petitioner.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Pravin Choudhary, Amicus Curiae; Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati
For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG

Case Title: Mahendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:52638-DB
Case Number: D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2288/2025
Bench: Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, Justice Anand Sharma