HC questions Dutt’s release

In 2016, the actor was released eight months in advance from Yerwada jail

Mumbai: In what could spell fresh trouble for Sanjay Dutt, the Bombay High Court on Monday asked the Maharashtra government to justify its decision to grant the actor early release from prison in the 1993 serial blasts case. The actor, who was on bail during the trial, had surrendered in May 2013 after the Supreme Court upheld his conviction. Dutt was let out in February 2016, eight months prior to this term.

The Bombay High Court has questioned the state over the ‘soft stance’ it has taken to release actor Sanjay Dutt eight months before his prison term and whether the same was applied to other prisoners too.

The court also asked the state the criterion for releasing Mr Dutt and parameters for assessing his good conduct while he was in and out of jail for the most part of his sentence. It also asked the state to submit details of the decision-making authority in such matters and whether the DIG prisons was in the loop while truncating the term. The court was hearing a PIL against the early release of Dutt, who was convicted for possessing arms that were part of haul smuggled into India to carry out the 1993 blasts and was undergoing his sentence in Yerwada jail.

In July 2007, the TADA court held Dutt guilty of illegally possessing an AK 56 rifle in a notified area of Mumbai and sentenced him to six years’ rigorous imprisonment.

Later, in May 2013, Dutt appealed in the Supreme Court but the court turned down his plea. However, it reduced his sentence to five years. In February 2016, Dutt completed his sentence after it was curtailed by eight months due to good behaviour.

A division bench of Justice R.M. Savant and Justice SS Jadhav was hearing a criminal public interest litigation filed by Pune-based activist Pradeep Bhalekar who had challenged the regular paroles and furloughs granted to Dutt when he was serving his sentence and his subsequent early release by almost eight months.

Taking cognisance of the objections, the bench directed the state to elaborate on how it decided that Dutt deserved leniency. The court also asked to know whether the DIG prisons was aware of the recommendation sent by the jail superintendent for permission to curtail Dutt’s sentence by eight months.