LILA RAM Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is said to have committed the murder of one Shri I.S. Kadan, who was at that time working as, Deputy Inspector General of Police (Prisons). He was 17 years old on the date of the Commission of crime. He was taken in custody on June 17, 1974. On February 20, 1976 he was convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and awarded imprisonment for life. It appears that while in prison he has been making some allegations against the prison authorities, which he also repeated in a letter addressed by him to the Chairman Committee for Implementing Legal Aid Scheme appointed by the Government of India. That petition had been forward to me for disposal. I converted the letter written by the Chairman of the aforementioned committee into a Criminal Misc. petition and requested Mr. Jindal to appear a friend of the Court to prosecute the petition on behalf of the petitioner and issued notice to the learned State Counsel for the Union Territory of Chandigarh.

(2.) THE latter has filed an affidavit sworn by the Home Secretary, Union Territory, Chandigarh, wherein it has been averred that the case of the petitioner for the release had earlier been considered by the Administration of Union Territory and rejected and the petitioner had moved the Supreme Court of India with the same petition which was dismissed with these observations : - "Mr. Jitendra Sharma who appears on behalf of the Union Territory, Chandigarh, has made a statement before us, that the representation of the petitioner has been considered and rejected. The writ petition is therefore, rejected".

(3.) IT has been mentioned in the affidavit filed by the Home Secretary, Union Territory of Chandigarh that the Release Committee has passed orders that the desirability of transferring the petitioner from District Jail Chandigarh, to some other Jail for sometime be considered and the reports of the concerned Functionaries of the Jail to which he may be transferred may be obtained and the case be re -examined after six months. The date on which this order was passed has not been mentioned in the affidavit but according to Mr. Brar, this order had been passed sometimes in the month of August. The fact, however, remains that the decision taken by the Release Committee was not implemented promptly in as much as the petitioner was not shifted from Chandigarh Jail. In this manner some right which had accrued to him because of the afore -mentioned order i.e. of having his case re -considered after being kept in a different Jail for six months has to some extent been placed in jeopardy. It is not disited that since he was below 20 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence, his case for release had to be considered by the State Government after he had completed 10 years including remissions in Jail. The learned counsel for the Union Territory, Chandigarh, has vehemently contended that since the case of the petitioner had been considered and rejected and that consideration has been upheld in the sense that the petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India, I should decline to interfere at this stage. I find no merit in the plea raised by the learned counsel. Earlier, the case of the petitioner had been considered in 1981 and his writ petition had also been dismissed by the highest court of the land on 10 September, 1981. As noticed earlier, since then conditions have materially changed. When it was ordered that the petitioner be kept in some other jail it was by implication conceded that the conduct of the petitioner deserves to be watched by an independent Functionary of the Jail Department. The corresponding right which accrued to the petitioner in that behalf has been violated in the sense that the order has not been complied with for as long as three months. If such a state of affairs is allowed to continue, in that event, probably the petitioner will never have an opportunity of showing good conduct with view to earning his release at an early stage. It cannot be again said that one of the object of the punishment is to reform the prisoners, and with that end in view, sometimes the prisoners are also released on parole. In the circumstances of this case since the petitioner was a young lady at the time of commission of offence and since the order regarding his transfer to another neighbouring Jail has not been complied with, as early as it should have been, I order that the petitioner be released if he furnishes bond in the sum of Rs. 500/ - with one surety in the like amount undertaking to be of good behaviour and to maintain peace for a period of one year. In case he does not abide by any of the conditions of the bond, it shall be open to the Administration to take him in custody, as are warranted by law. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.