GURDIAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the detenu-petitioner Gurdial Singh has assailed the order, dated June 11, 1991 of the Financial Commissioner, Home and Secretary to Governor, Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, rejecting his prayer for premature release.

(2.) THE factual position stated by the petitioner in his petition is that he had undergone more than 14 years sentence including remissions. It is specifically mentioned in the petition that the detenu had enjoyed parole on four occasions and furlough on three occasions, and there was no complaint of whatsoever nature against his antecedents or conduct during the period of parole/furlough. He has not committed any jail offence. It is further alleged in the petition that before granting parole/furlough, local police examined through their own angle and ultimately recommended his case and only thereafter he was released on parole/furlough. Furlough, according to the petitioner, is granted to only those convicts who have continuously maintained good conduct in Jail without any sort of complaint against their antecedents/conduct. The allegation of breach of peace on the release of the convict is absolutely wrong, he maintained as nobody ever made any complaint with regard to his conduct while he was on parole/furlough.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by Shri B.D. Aggarwal, Joint Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, on behalf of the respondent State, he has not denied the factual position stated by the petitioner with regard to his undergoing the requisite sentence and the factum of the petitioner being on parole/furlough without any complaint from any side. However, it is simple stated therein that the premature release case of the petitioner has been rejected by the Government on merits and speaking order has been passed enumerating the reasons for rejection and as such, the petitioner is not eligible for premature release at this stage.