JAGJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAGJIT Singh, petitioner, who is undergoing imprisonment for life in pursuance of the conviction and sentence recorded against him on 22.10.1991 in case FIR No. 197 dated 26.9.1989 registered at P.S. Sadar, Abohar by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, has filed the present petition asserting that his case and that of his brother Amrik Singh's case for premature release were forwarded by the jail authorities to the Government alongwith recommendation of the police that there was no apprehension of breach of peace if they are released on bail. The Home Department had directed the release of his brother while petitioner's case was turned down.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the appropriate Government ought not to have treated him differently from his brother and therefore has prayed that a direction should be issued to the respondent for considering it afresh as the relief has been given to his brother.

(3.) AFTER giving my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that in view of the fact that it is not disputed that while committing the murder, the petitioner and his co-accused had after giving the deceased fatal injuries on account of the dispute which existed between the parties about her share in the land/property had returned to the place where she was lying and on finding that she was still alive put her on a heap of cotton sticks and set on fire. This conduct of theirs exhibits extreme brutality beastiality which according to the instructions issued on 12.8.1998 by the State of Punjab does not warrant the extension of concession of premature release to the petitioner. The fact that co-accused of the petitioner, which according to the petitioner was similarly placed had been allowed the concession of premature release would not to my mind render the order illegal passed in his case as one wrong order passed in favour of one of the prisoners would not in law entitle the others to a similar treatment from the State. In view of the above, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.