DALIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUNJAB, HOME DEPARTMENT, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE reply to the petition has been filed and I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. According to the averments in the petition, till February 8, 1983 the petitioner has remained under confinement for a period of 15 years and 4 days inclusive of the remission of 7 years, 6 months and 24 days, granted by the Government. Even in the reply to the petition the period of confinement has been worked out to 14 years, 4 months and 13 days up to July 26, 1982. In either case, the petitioner has undergone more than 14 years of confinement. The learned counsel for the State further averred in the reply that the premature release case of the petition was considered and decided by the Government on February 28, 1983 and it was rejected with the order that the case shall be re -considered after a period of two years, after getting fresh reports from the District Level Committee and the Police authorities. A copy of the order of the Government dated February 28, 1983 rejecting the case of the petitioner has not been produced along with the reply, but I have perused the original record which has been made available to me. Without adverting to the details of the matter, it may be observed that no cogent reason has been shown as to why the case of the petitioner has been directed to be re -considered after a period of two years when in several other cases the period of re -consideration has been fixed as six months also. Accordingly, it is directed that the premature release case of the petitioner shall be re - considered and decided by the Government within six months from today. If for any reason the order for release is not passed, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar. If ultimately the authorities decide to reject the premature release case, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the order by appropriate action. Liberty is also given to the State to apply for cancellation of the bail, if so advised. With these observations, the present petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court in writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 4930 of 1981 to 4936 of 1981 decided on 31st August, 1983. Order accordingly.