BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted on October 31, 1979 by the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302 Indian Penal Code, and imprisonment for two years under section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently. The petitioner applied for premature release to the concerned authorities before he had undergone 1/2 years of actual sentence. The authorities rejected the mercy petition for premature release of the petitioner on September 30, 1986. Ultimately, this decision of the State Government was assailed before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 684 of 1987. The Supreme Court on May 4, 1487, disposed of this matter by remarking that a total period of 14 years is about to be completed and that the petitioner may make a afresh application which shall be disposed of expeditiously by the State Government. The petitioner then again moved the State Government vide petition (Annexure P4). This petition was rejected by the State Government on January 29, 1988 vide order Annexure P 5 on the ground that the father of the petitioner locked after the land owned by the petitioner and there was no other compassionate grounds entitling the petitioner to the concession of premature release. The petitioner then filed Cr. W P No. 1260 of 1987 before this Court, which was accepted on January 16, 1989, vide Annexure P6 and the State Government was directed to reconsider the matter for premature release of the petitioner afresh within four months. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail during this period. The State Government reconsidered the matter and rejected the case for premature release of the petitioner vide order dated May 15, 1989 (Annexure P7) on the ground that the respectables of the village Sham Churasi where the murder was committed by the petitioner apprehended danger to their lives and that during parole period, the petitioner had threatened Kapil Dev who had appeared as witness in the parent, case against him. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has again invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India contending that the State Government had rejected the petition for premature release of the petitioner on extraneous considerations.

(2.) IN the return filed by the respondent, it is contended that the State Government had rightly rejected the petition for premature release of the petitioner as the respectables of village Sham Churasi had reported that they apprehend danger to their lives from the petitioner.

(3.) THE matter does not rest here as on December 12, 1985, the State Government again issued instructions Annexure P3 in this regard listing the following seven items