GURNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition filed under Sec. 226 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the impugned order dtd. 11/5/2022 (Annexure P-3), whereby case of the petitioner for pre-mature release was rejected by Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar - respondent N: 3.

(2.) Petitioner is undergoing sentence in case FIR No.78 dtd. 19/5/2001 registered at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar, under Ss. 302, 323, 34 of IPC and Ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, wherein he was convicted vide judgment dtd. 31/10/2003 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Criminal Appeal No. CRA-D-168-DB-2004 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this court on 7/1/2008.

(3.) According to the petitioner, as per the policy dtd. 8/7/1991, issued by the Government of Punjab, a person is required to undergo 10 years actual sentence and 14 years of sentence by including remission period; whereas he has already undergone more than 11 years of actual sentence and by adding remission, this period has crossed 19 years and so, he is entitled to be considered for premature release. It is further contended that it is the policy applicable on the date of conviction, which is to govern the case of pre-mature release, as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Mahinder Singh 2007 (4) RCR 909; and State of Haryana and others Vs. Jagdish, 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 464. It is further submitted that the repeated requests made by the petitioner in this regard have not been considered. He also sent a Legal Notice dtd. 24/2/2022 (Annexure P-2) through his counsel to the Jail Authorities, but the respondent has not conveyed any information/order either to the counsel or to the petitioner, which led to filing of CRWP-3221 of 2022 before this Court, which was disposed of on 8/4/2022 with a direction to decide the pre-mature release case of the petitioner within a period of 6 weeks from that date. Ultimately, respondent No.3 vide the impugned order dtd. 11/5/2022 (Annexure P-3) rejected the case of the petitioner for premature release, by deducting the parole period in the actual sentence, which is not permissible under law. With these submissions, petitioner prays for his premature release.