BALDEV RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BALDEV Raj convict undergoing life imprisonment, addressed a letter to the Chairman, Committee for implementing Legal Aid Schemes, New Delhi, wherein he made out a grievance that he was 18 years old at the time of commission of the offence for which he was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code; if remissions were taken into consideration he had undergone 22 years 2 months' imprisonment during the period he remained in jail he did not commit a single jail offence, passed Giani and B.A. examinations while undergoing life imprisonment, availed of 5 items of parole/furlough without any trouble outside the jail and yet his case for premature release was not properly considered by the State Government. In his letter he mentioned the cases of three persons, namely, Mohinder Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Piara Singh, who were also undergoing life imprisonment on murder charges, and who had been granted premature release. This letter was forwarded to me, upon which I ordered that it should be registered as Criminal Miscellaneous petition, appointed Shri V.K. Jindal, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner and issued notice to the learned Advocate-General, Punjab, to show cause why the petitioner be not ordered to be released from custody. I had also ordered that the learned counsel for the State should produce the records of the cases of the persons mentioned in the petition, who according to the petitioner, had been released even though the reports were against them.

(2.) THE Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab filed an affidavit in reply, stating therein that the case of the petitioner for premature release was considered by the State Government on December 31, 1981, and rejected with the remarks that it may again be submitted to the Government after 6 months along with fresh report. In compliance with the aforementioned direction of the State Government, the case was resubmitted to it and rejected by it on November 26, 1982.

(3.) I have perused those reports today. The police authorities of District Bijnore have conceded that the petitioner was given paroles for a number of times but there was nothing on the record to show about his character as a law-abiding citizen one way or the other. The learned Assistant Advocate General also showed me the record of the District Level Committee, Kapurthala, which did not recommend the case of the petitioner. The record shows that the matter was inquired into by the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, who went to the village where the offence had been committed by the petitioner and collected the opinions expressed by respectable citizens. His report indicates that the close heirs of the victims apprehended that if the petitioner was released, he might again commit another crime. This opinion expressed by the A.S.I. was endorsed by the higher officers and on the basis of this opinion the District Level Committee made a report against the petitioner.