SWARN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for premature release of the petitioner on the ground that the case of the petitioner falls in the general category of Column C of Government instructions dated 08.08.2011 and it is also prayed that the petitioner is infected with terminal disease of Reactive HIV (1) and his case should be considered by the medical board for recommendation of his premature release as per para 516-B(V) of the Punjab Jail Manual. It is further prayed that the petitioner should be released without taking into account the jail offence allegedly committed by him.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was convicted in FIR No.74 dated 29.07.2001 under Sections 302/34 IPC, Police Station Sri Hargobindpur, District Gurdaspur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide judgment dated 03.12.2004 convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for life with fine. It is averred that the petitioner has completed 10 years 8 months and 16 days on 30.04.2012. It is averred in the petition that the premature release case of the petitioner should be considered according to Government instructions dated 08.08.2011. It is further averred that since he is infected with terminal Reactive HIV disease his case should be sent to State Medical Board for recommendations of premature release as per the Punjab Jail Manual. Another FIR No. III No.231/09 dated 03.07.2009 under Sections 66-B, 65-E, 81 of the Prohibition Act, P.S. Channi, Badodara City, registered against the petitioner should not be treated as a ground for rejection of the claim for premature release.

(3.) The respondents have filed reply and it is averred in the reply that as per para 431 of the Jail Manual the case of premature release will be only considered if the convict has maintained good conduct in jail. Good conduct means he has not committed any jail offence during the period of five years prior to the date of his eligibility for consideration for premature release. Petitioner has misused the concession of parole, which comes within the definition of jail offence as per Rules. Since the petitioner has indulged in criminal activities, his premature case will be initiated after five years from the date of subsequent FIR, although he has already undergone substantive sentence of 10 years and total sentence of 14 years including remissions. Petitioner was released on parole from 12.06.2009 to 25.07.2009. During this period, FIR No.231/09 registered on 03.07.2009 against the petitioner. Hence he has committed offence, which comes within the definition of jail offence. The conduct of the petitioner cannot be termed as good conduct as he has committed jail offence, so his case cannot be considered for premature release.