LACHHMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Lachhman Singh is undergoing life imprisonment in the Central Jail, Patiala, He filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 156 of 1984 claiming the benefit of under trial period As the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, the petitioner was released on bail till the matter was finally decided by the Supreme Court. After the decision of the Supreme Court, the petitioner filed another Criminal Writ Petition No. 634 of 1985 for his premature release case to be considered by State Government. In this writ petition following order was passed by this Court : "According to the return filed by the State, the petitioner has undergone the requisite period. Mr. Mann, learned counsel for A G. Punjab, states at the bar that the case of the petitioner for premature release would be positively considered by the end of December 1985. If the prayer or the petitioner's premature release is declined then it would be open to the petitioner to challenge that order in appropriate proceedings and it would also be open to the State to move this Court for cancellation of the bail to the petitioner as he is already on bail. This petition thus stands disposed of." Thereafter the petitioner's case was considered and rejected on Dec. 11,1985 The validity of this rejection order has been assailed in this Writ petition.

(2.) IN the return filed by the respondents the order of rejection is dependent and it is stated that the petitioner's case was rejected because the District Authorities had reported that his premature release was likely to prove hazardous to peace and tranquillity in the locality. No effort was, however, made to indicate as to bow law and order is like to be adversely affected by the premature release of the petitioner: As mentioned above he is already on bail for the last two years and it is not even alleged that during this period he acted in a manner prejudicial to the law and order. It is not revealed as to on what date the District Authorities had come to a conclusion that the premature release of the petitioner is likely to prove hazardous to peace and tranquillity in the locality. Thus, in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Bhagwat Saran v. State of U P and others, 1983(1) C L.R. 504, the order of the Stale rejecting the petitioner's case cannot be upheld. In the case before the Supreme Court also the only ground given by the State for rejection of the premature release case of a number of convicts was that they were not being released keeping in view the law and order situation. The Supreme Court ruled that a bald statement like that without any attempt to indicate as to how law and order is likely to be adversely affected by their release, cannot be accepted.

(3.) IN these circumstances, the impugned order of rejection dated December 11, 1985 is set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the premature release case of the petitioner. In the meantime the petitioner will continue to be on bail. In the event of the petitioner's case for premature release being rejected, he will surrender to the bail bonds, before the Court which granted him bail, on receipt of information from the respondents. He will, however, be at liberty to challenge validity of the rejection order in appropriate proceedings. This, petition is disposed of in these terms.