TARSEM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARSEM Sing petitioner who is at present confined to Borstal Jail, Ludhiana, on being convicted by Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur and sentenced to life imprisonment vide order dated Feb. 28, 1986, has come up in this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ directing his premature release.

(2.) THE petitioner has pleaded that after his order of conviction, he has undergone 7 years and 3 months actual sentence and also earned remissions exceeding six years. That at the time of his conviction, his age had been found to be 17 years and since he was below 20 years of age, he had been treated as a juvenile offender. The State had issued guidelines Annexures P1 to P3 to deal with the matter of premature release of the convicts. Since the petitioner had become entitled to premature release, he came to this Court in Cr. M. 11280 M of 1990 wherein a direction was given for decision of his mercy petition within four months. That since Cr. M.9689 - M of 1991 was filed. In the meantime, fresh instructions had been issued by the State Government. The Court further gave a direction P 1 to P3. The petitioner's case had, however, been rejected vide order dated Sept. 4, 1992, Annexure P 8. The petitioner challenges the validity of this order on the grounds that under the instructions, he had become eligible for premature release. That there was no cause for the State to hold that there was apprehension of breach of peace especially as the petitioner has peacefully enjoyed furlough and paroles on a member of occasions.

(3.) THE learned counsel urges that there was no material with the authorities to have recorded that there was apprehension to peace on the release of the petitioner and no documents have been placed on record, to support this apprehension. He also challenges this fact on the basis that there was uncontroverted plea made by the petitioner that he had peacefully enjoyed furloughs and paroles.