LAKHBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAKHBIR Singh petitioner has been undergoing life imprisonment since 9.8.1980 under orders of the learned Add. Sessions Judge, Amritsar. On the date of filing this criminal miscellaneous, he had undergone 10 years 4 months actual sentence and earned remissions for 6 years and 8 months. He had not committed any jail offence. Although he went on parole, HE was not involved in any other crime. Case for his premature release was moved to the State Govt. in the form of a mercy petition, but the same was rejected on 19.11.90. The petitioner has prayed for his premature release, as he had completed the minimum required period of actual imprisonment. Annexure P9 is the order of the Punjab Government rejecting his mercy petition.

(2.) NO return has been filed by the State and the contents of Annexure P-9 are considered as a reply to the petition.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the petitioner had been on parole and there is no allegation of his having committed an offence during that period. The law is well settled that some vague allegation regarding apprehension of breach of peace, about the premature release of a life-convict, is of no consequence for withholding the concession of premature release. " In Bhagwat Saran and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1983(1) CLR 504, the only grounds given by the State in the counter-affidavit was that after consideration of the cases of the convict sympathetically,keeping in view the law and order situation, they cannot be released. On these facts, their Lordships held that a bald statement, without any attempt to indicate how law and order is likely to be adversely affected by their release cannot be accepted. Their Lordship ordered the release of the petitioners. 5. A bare reading of the instructions quoted above will show that item No. 6 is an independent condition and it can be well said that if a convict has undergone more than the requisite sentence and a total of 14 years, including remissions, he is entitled to premature release. Similar view was adopted by N.C. Jain. J., in Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab and anr., 1989(1) Recent CR 238 and J.S. Sekhon, J., in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and anr., 1990(1) Recent CR 674." I, thus conclude that the order dated 19.11.90 Annexure P9, has been passed without properly applying the instructions to the petitioner's case.