SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURESH Kumar through present petition filed by him under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a direction that the petitioner be prematurely released as his further detention is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IT is pleaded in the petition that the petitioner was tried in a case registered vide F.I.R. No. 43 of 11th February 1984 by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted along with his mother. However, his mother in an appeal preferred by her in this Court was acquitted. He was arrested on 13th February, 1984 and was sentenced to life imprisonment on 26th November, 1984. Ever since the day of arrest, he is continuously in Jail except for the period he was released on parole/furlough and by now be has undergone more than 10 years and 8 months of actual sentence. He has also earned remissions exceeding 5 years and, therefore, total sentence undergone by him exceeds 15 years. His case for premature release was considered and rejected vide Annexure R-1 on 30.9.1994. In consequence of notice issued by this Court reply has been filed and the prayer contained in the petition as noticed above is opposed on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a heinous crime and his case for premature release can be considered after completion of 14 years of actual sentence including undertrial period. It is also sought to be opposed on the ground that on account of four jail punishments given to the petitioner, he does not deserve premature release.

(3.) THE objection by the State on the ground of jail sentences cannot be sustained being covered in favour of petitioner by the ratio of judgment in Subhash's case (supra). Additionally, in so far as two jail offences are concerned these are hardly jail offences; on one occasion the petitioner was found to be in possession of Rs. 510/- which were deposited in the bank and on the second occasion he threw one glass from factory section for which he was given verbal warning. In view of this Court these two do not constitute jail offences. In so far as other two jail offences are concerned, one is with regard to petitioner quarrelling with another prisoner for which he was kept separately for 14 days and the other for having been found sleeping while on duty for which 5 days remission was reduced. Thus for latter two offences, the petitioner had already been punished.