GURNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GURNAM Singh, who is a life-convict, has filed this criminal miscellaneous under section 482 Cr.P.C., read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a direction to the respondent, authorities to release him prematurely.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to have undergone more than 8 years 6 months actual sentence and has also earned remissions exceeding 6 years. Under the instructions, he has become eligible for premature release The petitioner himself is aged 66/67 years and his wife is also aged 62/63 years. He alleges that his father has already died, while his mother is 90 years old. His case for premature release was even commended by the Panchayat Persons, similarly situated, have been released.

(3.) THE fact that under the "guidelines" Annexures PI to P3 ground No. 6, the petitioner had become entitled to be considered for premature release, has not been disputed. The only consideration that weighed with respondent authoritics was that he had forged an order of the Supreme Court for bail and enjoyed bail under the same. The respondent authorities have not not placed on record any document which may establish, even prima facie, that the petitioner had participated in the commission of the said forgery. Admittedly, he was in Jail when the alleged documents were forged. Perhaps he could not have known the fact that (he order on the basis of which he was released, which had been obtained by his friends and relatives, was a forged one. In my view, procurement of the forged orders cannot be used against him. The petitioner admittedly had a clean record, otherwise.