ARSAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARSAL Singh has moved this criminal miscellaneous under section 482 Cr. P.C. read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking his premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur on 22-9-89. On the date of moving this criminal miscellaneous, he had undergone 9 years 2 months actual sentence. He claims to have earned remissions exceeding 6 years and 6 months. He has maintained satisfactory conduct in the jail and not committed any jail offence. He has enjoyed parole/furlough on numerous occasions and no complaint was made against his conduct. The State had issued instructions P1 to P3, laying down the guidelines for decision of mercy petitions and grant of premature release. His case having not been considered for premature release, he moved Criminal Writ No. 3830 of 1989 and vide judgment dated 11-4-90 a direction was issued therein for decision of his mercy petition by 31-7-90. It was also ordered therein that in case his mercy petition was not decided within the period stipulated by the Court, he would be allowed bail. His mercy petition was not decided and he was released on bail in the month of August 1990, for two weeks. The State Govt. has since rejected his mercy petition vide order Annexure P5 dated 20-11-90. That his mercy petition has been rejected on the basis that there was apprehension of breach of peace in case of his release and that the Panchayat was reluctant to take the responsibility. There was absence of grounds for exercise of discretion by the respondent-authorities for rejecting his mercy petition. The petitioner challenges the validity of Annexure P5. In the return filed by the respondent-authorities, it was admitted that the petitioner had undergone actual sentence for 9 years, 2 months and 7 days and earned remissions for 7 years and 11 days and at present, he was on bail under orders of this Court, in Cr. WP 3830 of 1989. The mercy petition in question has since been considered and rejected for the reasons given in Annexure P. 5. While deciding the mercy petition, a number of factors, including the facts and circumstances of the case; character of the convict; his conduct inside and outside jail; tendency to revert to crime or to instigate others to commit crime and grounds of compassionate nature, if any, have to be taken into account, besides the period of imprisonment undergone. In case of intractably savage delinquents, even 14 years of actual sentence, as laid down in section 433-A, Cr. PC could be taken as a guideline. The minimum requisite period only entitled a convict to have his case considered and not his release.

(3.) THE law is well settled that vague allegations relating to breach of peace are not relevant for withholding the concession of premature release.