KULWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KULWANT Singh petitioner was arrested on the charge of murder on 18th May, 1979 and after trial he was awarded imprisonment for life on 18th December, 1980 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Since then he was confined in jail and he was undergone about ten years' actual sentence and earned the remissions exceeding six years. During his confinement in jail he maintained satisfactory conduct and never committed any jail offence. He enjoyed parole and furlough on nine occasions without any complaint against his antecedents. His brother Kashmir Singh was also convicted along with him but he was released by the State Government.

(2.) THE State Government issued instructions under Article 161 of the Constitution for 'premature release of the convicts which were in Annexure P-1 to P-3 and in view of these guidelines, the petitioner moved a petition for his premature release on 7-1-1988 as by that time he had completed more than eight years and six months' actual sentence and 14 years' sentence including remissions. His case was rejected by the State Government vide order Annexure P-5. That order was assailed by the petitioner by way of Crl. Writ Petition No. 1741 of 1988, which was disposed of on 9-3-1989 and the State Government was ordered to consider the premature release case of the petitioner within four months from that date. On 30th March, 1989 in Crl. Misc. No. 81 of 1989 the petitioner was admitted to bail during the period of four months allowed to the State Government for deciding the case of the petitioner.

(3.) IN the return filed by the State, it was stated that the petitioner remained on bail from 25-8-1988 to 10-1-1989 and he was still on bail since 10-5-1984 but he had undergone actual sentence for 9 years 7 months 2 days and he had been allowed remission for 6 years 7 months 6 days. He remained on parole for 7 months 14 days and on furlough for 2 months 17 days. This fact was admitted that in jail the petitioner maintained satisfactory conduct. It was further contended that while rejecting the case of the petitioner for premature lease, the ground of compassionate was duly considered. The younger brother of the petitioner had already been released from detention and he was able to look after the family-affairs.