BACHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for directing the respondents to initiate and decide his premature release case.

(2.) The petitioner along with his brother and one co-accused were involved in a murder case. He was arrested on August 4, 1985, and ultimately was convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34 IPC to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- and also under Section 324/34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months by judgement dated September 12, 1986. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court. According to the petitioner; up till now he has undergone actual sentence till July 31, 1995, of 9 years 11 months and 28 days, which includes undertrial period of 1 years 1 month and 8 days and actual sentence period of 8 years 10 months and 20 days. He has earned remissions of 5 years and six months. Thus, according to the petitioner, he has undergone total sentence of 15 years 5 months and 28 days uptill end of July 1995. The State of Haryana has issued statutory instructions dated February 4, 1993, Annexure P-2, to grant premature release to life convicts. According to the petitioner, his case falls under para 2(b) of these instructions. Though his case is ripe for consideration under para 2(b) of the said instructions, respondent No. 3 has declined to initiate his premature release case wrongly and illegally. It is also contended that he is not convicted of any jail offence. During his confinement he has acquired additional educational qualifications of Gyani, Prabhakar and has cleared B.A. Part-II examination as well. There is no male member to look after his family which consists of his ailing mother, wife and minor daughter and sons. It is further averred that he was on parole for a period of 1 year, 5 months and 15 days. This period is also to be counted towards the total period of actual sentence undergone by him. Hence it is prayed that the respondents be directed to consider his case of premature release under para 2(b) of the said instructions.

(3.) The respondents in their reply have raised certain preliminary objections and have inter alia pleaded that life sentence is nothing less than life term. The main contention is that the period for which the petitioner was on parole cannot be counted as sentence undergo and till he undergoes actual sentence of 14 years, his case for premature release cannot be considered. It is also objected that his case falls under para 2(b) of the said instructions and on this count also till he completes 14 years actual sentence including under-trial period and after earning at least 6 years remissions, his case cannot be considered.