GURBAX SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was arrested on 27.8.1981 and convicted on 4.5.1982 for having murdered his father Bhag Singh. On the completion of the requisite period of imprisonment he moved an application for pre-mature release but as no decision was being taken thereon, came to this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 12488-M of 1990 and while disposing of the said application on 21.12.1990 vide Annexure R-1, this Court directed that the case of the petitioner for premature release was to be considered within four months. The case was accordingly considered but vide order dated 24.7.1991 was deferred for a period of one year. The matter was reconsidered after the lapse of one year and vide Annexure P-2 dated 6.8.1992 rejected on the ground that it would be reconsidered after a lapse of another year. Annexure P-2 was challenged in this Court through Crl. Misc. No. 8773-M of 1993 and vide orders dated 12.10.1993 this Court once again directed that the case of the petitioner for pre-mature release be decided within two months from that date. The State Government thereafter rejected the case of the petitioner vide Annexure P-3 dated 3.1.1994 holding that as the crime committed by the petitioner was a henious one it fell within para 2(a) of the Annexure R-4 dated 4.2.1993 and that being so his case for pre mature release was liable to be considered only after he had put in 14 years of actual imprisonment which admittedly the petitioner had not undergone.

(2.) IN response to notice in the petition, a reply has been filed on behalf of the State Government and the order Annexure P-3 is sought to be justified by averting that as the petitioner had killed his father over a petty quarrel, this was a heinous crime and as the petitioner has not put in 14 years of actual imprisonment, he is not entitled to be released pre-maturely.

(3.) MR . Azad Singh, learned State Counsel, however, averred that it was for the State Government alone to determine as to under which part of Annexure R-4 the case of the petitioner would fall and the State Government having decided that it fell within paragraph 2(a), the petitioner was not entitled to be released.