SHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of Indian Sher Singh-petitioner has prayed for his premature release from jail. It is alleged by him in this criminal misc. petition that he was convicted and sentenced to under go imprisonment for life for committing murder of a woman in case FIR No. 215 dated 19.9.1998 registered under Section 302 IPC at Police Station, Mohindergarh on 4.2.1989 by the Sessions Judge, Narnaul. He has undergone actual sentence of 11 years, 2 months and has earned remissions of 4 years and 8 months. His conduct in jail has through out been good. Petition filed criminal misc. petition No. 11291-M of 1999 under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India readwith Section 482 Cr.P.C. for his premature release and in compliance with the direction of this Court in the said criminal misc. petition, the case of the petitioner for his premature release was considered and it was ordered that the case of premature release of the petitioner would be considered when he completes 14 years of actual sentence and 20 years total sentence including remissions and held that the case of the petitioner falls in para 2(a) of the Haryana Government Instructions for premature release of life convicts dated 4.2.1993 as amended in 1997, Government of Haryana passed order Annexure P-1 whereby it was held that his case for premature release is governed by para 2(a) of the instructions dated 4.2.1993 as amended in 1997 and he will be considered for premature release as and when he completes 14 years actual sentence including undertrial period and 20 years total sentence including remissions, minus parole period. It is alleged that criminal misc. petition No. 11291-M of 1999 was in fact a writ in the nature of habeas corpus petition. A fellow prisoner named Satdev son of Dalle Ram who was lying confined in the same jail was ordered to be release prematurely under para 2(b) of the Government Instructions dated 4.2.1993 on 11.10.1999 who was also indicated for the murder of a woman and his case for premature release became due on 22.4.1999 whereas the case of the petitioner became due on 4.2.1999 for premature release. Not only Satdev, many other convicts who filed petitions in this Court for their premature release were held entitled to premature release because of instructions dated 4.2.1993. It was held that the policy which was in force on the date of conviction of the prisoner would govern the case of the prisoner for his premature release.

(2.) STATE of Haryana filed SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Before any decision could be taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, State of Haryana conceded that the instructions dated 4.2.1993 would be applicable to their cases. The order dated 26.2.1999 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is Annexure P-2. The prisoners mentioned in Annexure P-2 were thus given back door pass-port to save themselves from the clutches of arbitrary policy of 1997 by the Haryana Government which is not based on rational criteria. It is alleged that the Government should not be discriminatory in its behaviour. It should not be selective when it is distributing its largesse.

(3.) AT the time when the State Government made a commitment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the policies of 1993, 1997 and 1998 were in force. Thus, by this action of the State, the policies of 1997 and 1998 became redundant as the State owed a moral duty towards its citizens not to discriminate people from others similarly situated. It is alleged that he is entitled to be governed by 1993 instructions para 2(b) in the matter of premature release. He is not governed by the subsequently amended instructions. A continuance wrong is being done to him by keeping him incarcerated after 26.2.1999 when the State Government had made commitment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the policy of 4.2.1993 would be applicable to the cases of persons who were respondents in these appeals.