BANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 22.11.2013 (Annexure P-6) passed by Principal Secretary, Home and Justice Department, Punjab, Chandigarh whereby the case of the petitioner for premature release has been declined. A further prayer has also been made to consider the case of the petitioner in view of Para 431 of New Punjab Jail Manual, 1996(Annexure P-4).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and he has already undergone more than 12 years of actual sentence and 18 years of sentence including remission. Learned counsel also submits that the offence under Section 302 IPC does not fall under the definition of heinous crime as described in Para No.431 of Punjab Jail Manual, 1996. Paragraph 431 of Punjab Jail Manual, 1996 which is applicable to the case of the petitioner who was convicted way back in the year 1998 defines the crimes which fall under the definition of heinous crimes. Committing the murder of one's father is not defined as a heinous crime in Column 'B' of Para 431 of Punjab Jail Manual, 1996 which reads as under:

(3.) Learned State counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that he has completed only 12 years of actual sentence and 18 years of sentence including remission. Learned State counsel also submits that the petitioner had committed murder of his father and therefore, it comes under the category of heinous crimes. The authority concerned was also of the opinion that the premature release of the petitioner on the basis of mercy would give a wrong signal to the society and there would be propensity for people to commit such offences. Learned State counsel also submits that in view of order dated 09.07.2014 passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.48 of 2014 titled as Union of India vs. V. Shriharan @ Murugan and others, the premature release cases of those life convicts who have completed the parameters of the premature release policy applicable in their cases, were held up as the State Government was restrained to pass order of premature release. He also submits that now, on 23.07.2015, Hon'ble the Apex Court has modified the stay order dated 09.07.2014. The relevant portion of order dated 23.07.2015 is reproduced as under: