OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OM Parkash, petitioner has come to this Court, in this criminal miscellaneous under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking premature release.

(2.) THE petitioner was convicted by the Add. Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide his order dated 14-9-1979 and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. He has undergone more than 11 years 5 months of actual sentence and earned remissions of 7 years, besides his confinement in jail, as an undertrial. He has availed of paroles and furloughs. On the basis of instructions Annexures P- 1 to P-3, the petitioner moved a petition to the State Government under Article 161 of the Constitution of India on 7-1-1989, vide copy Annexure P-4. The said mercy petition having not been decided by the concerned authorities, he came to this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 825 of 1989 that was decided on 13-7-1989. A direction was issued therein that his premature release case be decided within a period of 4 months, vide copy Annexure P-5. The case was, however, not decided. He then brought Criminal Writ Petition No 3974 of 1989, challenging the inaction of the Govt. This petition was decided by the Court on 8-8-1990 and a direction was issued, vide copy of order Annexure P-6, that he be released on bail till decision of his case. The bail bonds were accepted by the District Magistrate, but the Superintendent Jail refused to release him on the basis that his mercy petition had been rejected on 7-12-1989, vide copy of order supplied to him which is Annexure P-7. However, when the earlier writ petition was decided vide Annexure P-6, this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court.

(3.) THE fact of the petitioner having undergone wore that 8-1/2 years actual sentence was admitted. It was stated that the State Govt. had considered the mercy petition on merits and rejected it and that fact had been intimated to the petitioner. In the additional written statement, It was stated that the premature release case of the petitioner had again been-initiated on the direction of the Inspector General of Prisons and the same would be decided on merits :