The Bombay High Court’s bench at Goa recently ordered the premature release of a life convict who had spent nearly 20 years in prison. A Division Bench of Justice Neela Gokhale and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar held that remission must be decided by looking at the convict’s present behaviour, proof of reformation, and chances of returning to society.
Case Background:
The petitioner, Rohan P. Pai Dhungat, was convicted for his role in the 2006 kidnapping and murder of Mandar Surlakar. The crime was part of a plan to demand ransom from Mandar Surlakar’s father. The victim was kidnapped, assaulted, and later found dead.
The petitioner was convicted by the Children’s Court, Goa, under Sections 120-B, 364-A, 302, and 201 of the IPC, and Section 8 of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003.
In 2019, the Bombay High Court confirmed his conviction. However, while dismissing his appeal, the High Court said that reformation is the proper aim of prison sentencing. It also left it open to the appropriate authority to consider remission after he completed the required minimum period.
After the petitioner completed 14 years of actual imprisonment, the State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) considered his case for early release. In May 2025, the SSRB recommended his release after reviewing reports from the Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour, the District Magistrate, and prison authorities.
The Board noted his good conduct in prison, took part in rehabilitation activities, completed educational courses, and had no negative reports during his 24 parole and furlough releases.
However, the State Government rejected the recommendation. It mainly relied on the serious and planned nature of the crime and concerns that he might reoffend. The petitioner then approached the High Court.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court examined Rules 397 to 404 of the Goa Prison Rules, 2006. It noted that the SSRB must consider factors such as the prisoner’s conduct, response to training and treatment, changes in habits and character, health, mental condition, and chances of resettlement.
The Bench also relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rohit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttarakhand. It held that remission cannot be refused only because the crime was very serious. The Court said:
“The Supreme Court in Rohit Chaturvedi (supra) made it clear that in a constitutional polity governed by the rule of law, the denial of remission cannot rest solely on the ground of the heinousness of the crime. The nature of the offence cannot be the sole ground for denying remission”
The Court also considered the petitioner’s conduct in prison. It noted that different authorities found his conduct and rehabilitation to be satisfactory. The Court observed:
“the Petitioner participated in various reformation activities in prison; he is an excellent painter and a poet, and he also completed LLB, BA (Literature), PG Diploma in communications and IT skills, PG Diploma in Journalism and Mass Communications, etc., while undergoing his sentence”
Court’s Judgment
After considering all the facts, the Court held that keeping the petitioner in prison after more than 20 years would serve no useful purpose. It directed the respondents to release him.
The Court refused to stay the release order. However, it imposed conditions: the petitioner must report to the local police station once every month for the first six months, and once every three months for the next six months.
Case Details: Rohan P. Pai Dhungat v. The State of Goa
