(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the period of surety for good behaviour for life sought by the respondents who are the Delhi Administration and its functionaries as one of the conditions imposed under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code for remitting the life sentence of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had completed 14 years of imprisonment in accordance with Section 433-A of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Sentence Revising Board' had found his case to be fit to be recommended for premature release and he was accordingly released and has now sought to challenge the duration of the surety given on his behalf.
(2.) The petitioner was a life convict and his sentence was remitted by an order dated 25.1.93 subject to his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000.00 with two sureties in the like amount for maintaining peace and keeping good behaviour during the unexpired portion of his sentence. The relevant portion of the order of respondent No. I reads as under:-
(3.) According to the petitioner the cases of life convicts after completion of minimum period of 14 years imprisonment are considered for release before the Sentence Revising Board which individually reviews cases of the convicts and based upon the recommendations of the Board, orders arc issued remitting the remaining portion of the sentence of the convicts recommended for release. Pursuant to the above order dated 25.1.93 the petitioner furnished the required sureties to the satisfaction of the respondent No. 2. The surety of Diwan Singh, son of Govind Singh was accepted by respondent No. 2 on the basis of his ownership of a DDA flat and an endorsement to this effect was made on the allotment letter of the said flat. The second surety of Kalyan Singh son of Balwant Singh was accepted on the basis of a Fixed Deposit Receipt in the sum of Rs. 10,000.00 and a similar endorsement was also made on the Fixed Deposit Receipt of the said Kalyan Singh.