BHAGWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the allegations in the petition, Harbant Singh was sentenced to death by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide his order dated 30.8.1968. It was confirmed by the High Court. The death sentence was commuted to imprisonment for life on Mercy Petition in the year 1969 on the occasion of Gandhi Jayanti. By this time, be has undergone 12 years 11 months and 14 days actual imprisonment, and has earned remissions of 11 years and thus, the total period he has undergone in 23 years 11 months and 4 days. In view of the Punjab Jail Manual, the convict was entitled to be considered for pre-mature release on the expiry of 14 years sentence, including the remissions. However, on 30.1.1976 the Punjab State issued instructions regarding pre-mature release of life convicts whose death sentence had been commuted on Mercy Petition. The Government took a decision that the said convicts must undergo 14 years actual imprisonment. Those instructions came up for interpretation in some criminal writ petitions before the High Court and it was held that those instructions were prospective in effect and those convicts whose death sentence was commuted on Mercy Petition and were convicted prior to the date of those instructions were not covered by them. One of such decisions was given in Criminal Writ Petition No. 215/1981. Aggrieved by that order, the State of Punjab filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, but the same was dismissed in limine on 8.4.1983. A copy of that order passed by the Supreme Court is annexed to this petition Annexure as P1. In spite of the said decision, the State of Punjab is bent upon to enforce 14 years actual imprisonment before the pre-mature release case such like convict is considered.

(2.) THE petitioner relying upon a decision of this court of Criminal Writ Petition No. 215 of 1981 (Mehar Singh v. State of Punjab and another), decided on 10th April, 1982, filed habeas corpus about the release of Harbant Singh convict. This Court directed the Government to decide the premature release case of the convict within a period of three weeks from 11.11.1982. While giving that direction, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maru Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147, Harbant Singh's premature release case was considered in the light of the order dated 11.11.1982, but was rejected. The only thing which weighed with the State was that the said convict had not completed 14 years of actual imprisonment. Except that factor, there was nothing against the convict. The petitioner again challenged that order of the State Government by filing a habeas corpus petition and it was decided on 23.2.1983. That petition was accepted on the ground that while dealing with the case of the detenu, no fresh reports were obtained from the District Level Committee. The State Government undertook that the premature release case of the convict would be decided within a period of two months after obtaining fresh reports. Bhagwant Singh has now filed the present habeas corpus petition. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, holding that further detention of Harbant Singh is not based on sufficient ground and is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. His case is that his case was considered on or before 23.4.1983 in the light of the order dated 23.2.1983 and that it was learnt that his case was considered and rejected for two years. He has further alleged that his conduct in the jail has been good and, therefore, the said order is bad.

(3.) IT may be mentioned here that in the reply it is not mentioned that the conduct of the convict in jail has not remained good. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Cr. Writ Petition No. 215 of 1981 (Mehar Singh v. State of Punjab and another), decided on April 10, 1982. In that case, as notice earlier, the instructions issued by the State Government on January 30, 1976, came up for interpretation. It was held :-