ANAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admitted and heard simultaneously.

(2.) This petition for habeas corpus raises rather a ticklish question as to what meaning is to be assigned to the word parole commonly in vogue in the context of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1902 (hereafter referred to as the Act.

(3.) The petitioner claims the release of two detenus Jagir Singh and Baj Singh. These two persons were sentenced to imprisonment for life on 1.4.1975 by a Court of Session under section 302, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner claiming; that they had actually served sentence of more than 81/2 years each, inclusive of the period they spent on parole, as also that they had spent 14 years Imprisonment inclusive of the remissions earned, their cases for premature release had to be considered. The petitioner at an earlier occasion had approached this Court in Criminal Writ No. 301 of 1983 which was disposed of by K.P.S. Sandhu J. on 17-8-1983 on the under; standing that the detenus had by then not completed the requisite period and the moment they did so, the State Government would be prepared to take up their cases for premature release. The State Government in that event was directed to supply a copy of the order to the detenus. By way of this petition, the petitioner bemoaning that the requisite period had elapsed and a copy of the order had not been supplied, again invited the attention of this Court towards the claim. Reliance was placed by the petitioner on Maru Ram v. Union of India etc. as was followed by me in Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab and another. Support was also sought from Criminal Writ Nos. 253, 272 and 273 of 1983 decided by B.S. Yadav J. on 22nd July, 1983 and other decisions in which the view I had expressed in Rajinder Singhs case (supra) was either conceded to by the State or remained unquestioned.