MANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Criminal Writ Petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of direction to the respondents to initiate and consider the premature release case of the petitioner as he has already undergone more than the sentence period required for considering his case for grant of premature release.

(2.) Admittedly, petitioner and another co-accused namely Ravdeep Kaur were convicted vide judgment dated 28/30/3/2012, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, in case FIR No.321 dtd. 14/10/2005, under Sec. 302/34/109/115/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, which was ordered to be extended to their full life, and also to pay fine of Rs.50,000.00 each. At present, the petitioner is lodged at Central Jail, Patiala. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal before this Court bearing No.CRA-D-995-DB-2012, which is still pending before this Court for adjudication.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has already undergone more than the sentence required to be undergone for considering his case for premature release. In this regard, it has been submitted that the Punjab Government has issued instructions dtd. 8/8/2011 (Annexure P-1) regarding premature release of 'life convicts' while exercising powers under Ss. 432, 433 and 433-A Cr.P.C. and Article 161 of the Constitution of India, wherein it is provided that case of life convict could be considered after undergoing 10 years of actual sentence and 14 years with remission. It has further been submitted that the petitioner repeatedly requested the jail authorities to initiate his case for premature release but when his request was not acceded to, he sent legal notice dtd. 3/11/2023 (Annexure P-2) to the jail authorities through an Advocate. Reply to the said legal notice dtd. 17/11/2023 (Annexure P-3) was sent by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, wherein it was conveyed that the petitioner was not eligible for premature release as per the Punjab Government Policy dtd. 8/7/1991. However, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that a number of convicts have already been released by the concerned Authorities on the basis of Government Policies but case of the petitioner has not even been considered till date. In addition to this, even case of co-convict Ravdeep Kaur has been considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and she was directed to be released on interim bail till final decision is taken by the Authorities on the issue of her premature release, subject to final outcome of her appeal. So, case of the petitioner be also considered for pre-mature release as he his actual undergone period comes to more than 15 years (as undertrial and after conviction), even if remission period of 03 years and about 04 months is excluded.