Panaji: Deepak Surlakar, father of Mandar Surlakar, has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay high court’s order granting premature release to life convicts Rohan Dhungat, Shankar Tiwari and Ryan Pinto in his son’s 2006 kidnapping and murder case.Surlakar’s petition, along with the state’s plea challenging the convicts’ premature release, came up before the SC on Tuesday. The apex court issued notice in the state’s special leave petition (SLP). To avoid conflicting rulings, the court said both petitions should be heard by one division bench and directed that the matters be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.On Aug 6, the HC granted premature release to the three convicts on the recommendation of the sentence review board after they completed 14 years of actual imprisonment. After that order, the fourth convict, Nafiyaz Shaikh, also approached the HC seeking premature release. Surlakar has opposed the State Sentence Review Board’s recommendation to release Shaikh.On Aug 3, the HC quashed the state’s order rejecting the sentence review board’s recommendation to release the convicts, noting they had completed “14 years of actual imprisonment excluding parole and more than 20 years of total imprisonment”.While directing the convicts’ release, the high court said it was mindful of the family’s emotional loss, but noted that courts have adopted “a reformative approach rather than a retributive one”. The court said the release order did not reflect apathy towards the victim family’s opposition, adding that punishment is justified only to the extent it serves future-oriented purposes such as prevention, reform and restoration of order.Surlakar opposed the premature release, arguing that the sentence review board failed to consider the victim’s voice, the nature and manner of the crime, its gravity and heinousness, and its impact on society. He also argued that no independent psychological or behavioural assessment was conducted to determine whether the convicts no longer posed a future risk, and that reliance on jail conduct or anecdotal impressions from prison staff was insufficient to assess reform and risk.
