JASBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted on October 26, 1983 for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for having committed the murder of his grand -father. It is the case of the petitioner that ever since his arrest on September 11, 1982, he has been in prison but for some period when he was released on parole etc. The petitioner applied for premature release for the first time in 1992, but his case was rejected vide Annexure P2 on June 5, 1992, on the ground that he had not completed the requisite 14 years actual sentence and 20 years with remissions as provided in Annexure -P 6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Criminal Misc. No. 7904 -M of 1992 in this Court and vide Annexure -P3 dated December 14, 1993, the matter was remitted to the authorities to reconsider the same within two months. The case of the petitioner was once again rejected on February 12, 1993 vide Annexure -P4. The petitioner again approached this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 3635 -M of 1993 and while disposing of the aforesaid matter vide Annexure -P5 dated October 4, 1993, the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court clearly held that the case of the petitioner was to be considered in terms of paragraph 2(b) and not 2(a) of Annexure -P6. The matter was again considered by the authorities but rejected vide Annexure -R -2, dated 11.2.1994 by the State Level Committee, holding that as a motive behind murder was a base one, the case of the petitioner for premature release would be considered after a period of one year. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) MR . V.K. Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised only one argument. He has urged that as this Court vide Annexure -P5 has clearly held that the case of the petitioner was to be considered under paragraph 2(b) of Annexure -P6, the finding of the authorities vide Annexure -P2 that the case ought to be considered after one year, was not called for as under paragraph 2(b), the petitioner was entitled to be released after having served 10 years actual sentence and 14 years along with remissions, the period that he had admittedly undergone since long. As against this, Mr. Gill, learned Assistant Advocate -General, Haryana, has argued that as the motive behind the murder was to secure the property of the deceased, the case of the petitioner was covered under Paragraph 2(a) of Annexure -P6.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have no option but to allow the petition, although, to my way of thinking, the case of the petitioner who murdered his grand - father with the intention of getting 3 -1/2 killas of land that he owned was fully covered by paragraph 2(a), but as the State had not chosen to challenge Annexure -P5, I have no option but to accept it. In this view of the matter, the State Level Committee was required to consider the case of the petitioner exclusively under paragraph 2(b) and as the petitioner has admittedly undergone the requisite period of sentence, he was entitled to be released and his case should not have been deferred for a period of one year on the ground that the crime committed by him was a heinous one.