CHAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is .undergoing imprisonment for life in Central Jail, Bhatinda, in pursuance of his conviction for the offence of murder, by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda vide judgment dated 13.7.1982 has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of tie Constitution of India for his premature release. The petitioner averred that he, was arrested on 16.9.1981 and since the day of his arrest he was continuously confined in Jail. He had undergone 10 years 5 months actual sentence and had also earned remissions exceeding six years. He enjoyed parole and furlough on number of occasions without giving any cause for hearing. Along with him his real brother Mukhtiar Singh was also convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life but his case for premature release was considered and allowed by the respondents. The case of the petitioner was on better footing as he was more than 75 years age and was suffering from so many ailments. As per the latest instructions issued by the State Government on 8.7.1991 Annexure P/5 he was required to undergo only 10 years actual sentence and 14 years sentence including remissions. His case was considered by the State Government but was rejected vide order dated 19.9.1991 Annexure P/6. The order rejecting his case was illegal and discriminatory. He was an old man and was never found guilty of any jail offence. He was entitled to his release forthwith.

(2.) IN the return filed by respondent No. 1 it was admitted that the petitioner had undergone actual sentence for about 10 years and had earned remissions for about 6 years but it was pleaded that each individual premature release case of a life convict was to be considered on its own merits under the Government Instructions keeping in view the reports of District Authorities. The case of the petitioner was rejected as it had come on record that the occurrence was the result of a land dispute which was still pending. The petitioner was the leader of the party and if released he could harm the aggrieved party. There was also likelihood of breach of peace in case he was released. His family affairs were being looked after by Mukhtiar Singh whose case for premature release was accepted.

(3.) THE order declining premature release of the petitioner is Annexure P/6. The petitioner had sought his release prematurely on the ground that he had undergone the requisite period of sentence and had maintained satisfactory conduct in jail. His two other brothers were also confined in jail and there was no male member in the family to look after the domestic affairs. The grounds on which his case was rejected were that the occurrence was the result of a land dispute and that dispute was still subsisting. One civil suit was also pending between the parties and Chand Singh petitioner was likely to cause harm to the aggrieved party. In case he was released, there was also likelihood of breach of peace. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the reasons mentioned in the impugned order for declining premature release of the petitioner were not justifiable or legal. The ground of apprehension of breach of peace is of no consequence as it has been held by this Court in various, cases that this is not a valid ground to deny the benefit of premature release. The contention of the learned counsel is well merited. This fact is not denied by the respondents that during his detention in jail and his release on parole or furlough the petitioner maintained good conduct and was never awarded jail punishment when outside the jail he did not indulge in any activity which could have resulted in breach of peace. Even the aggrieved party had no cause of complaint against him. Except the instant occurrence he was never involved in any other criminal litigation. There is no data on the record on the basis of which breach of peace was apprehended at the hands of the petitioner in the event of his release. There is also nothing, to substantiate the allegations that the land dispute is still pending between the parties. The real brother of the petitioner has already been released by the State Government and his release had not affected the relation between the parties. The petitioner is an old man of more than 75 years of age who is suffering from various ailments and it will not be proper to hold that his release will create any problem regarding maintenance of public peace especially when the petitioner is to be released after execution of bonds and furnishing surety undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour during such period. The petitioner has undergone the minimum requisite period of actual sentence and had also earned remissions. He is legally entitled to premature release. In the case of Bhagwant Saran and others v. State of U. P. and others, 1983(1) C. L. R. 504 concession of premature release was with held by the State government in view of the law and order situation and is was held that there being nothing to indicate as to how law and order was likely to be, adversely affected petitioner should be released forthwith.