VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Vinod Kumar, son of Mohan Lal, was tried and convicted for an offence under Section 302, read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. According to him, he was arrested on 24.11.1985 and sentenced to imprisonment for life on 20.8.1987. He claim that he was allowed one parole and two furloughs and had earned a remission of six years. He claims that when he was released on second parole, he had overstayed for two months and, therefore, was sentenced to three months imprisonment for the same. He claims that from 24.11.1985 (the date of his arrest) to 27.2.1995 he had actually undergone 9 years 3 months and 3 days imprisonment and earned six years' remission. He contends that his case for premature release was not initiated by the respondents and there is also no communication rejecting his case for premature release. That is why he has come forward with this application for directing the respondents to initiate his case for oremature release. The respondents who entered appearance on 31.5.1995 have not filed any reply till 5.1.1996 in spite of sufficient opportunity given to them. Therefore, arguments were heard. Inasmuch as there is no counter denying the claim of the petitioner as mentioned above, we will have to proceed on the basis that the petitioner had undergone 9 years 3 months and 3 days actual imprisonment and had earned six years' remission as on 27.2.1995. Therefore, the case of the petitioner for premature release has to be considered since there is nothing to show that he has committed any heinous crime. The consideration of the petitioner's case for premature release was due after 8-1/2 years of actual sentence undergone and a total period of 14 years, including the remission earned. On the allegations found in the petition which are not denied, it is evident that he has actually undergone 9 years 3 months and 3 days and earned a remission of six years. Though, he has been sentenced for 3 months imprisonment for his absence from jail when he was released on parole, the said sentence will not be a bar to the consideration of his case. The petitioner is supported in this regard by the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1992(2) RCR 37. Therefore, as prayed for by the petitioner, the respondents have to initiate the case of the petitioner for premature release, consider it and pass appropriate orders.

(2.) THIS petition is allowed directing the respondents to initiate and decide the case of the petitioner for premature release bearing in mind all the Instructions issued by the Government, and in the light of the observations made above, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.