JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6602-M of 1996 filed by Jagdish son of Shri Ram Dhari against the State of Haryana through the Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of Home Affairs (Jail Administration Branch ). Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482, Cr. P. C. for issuance of writ, order or direction that he be released prematurely from jail. It is alleged by him that he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by Sessions Judge, Karnal on 6. 1. 1984 under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code. Since 5. 1. 1984 he has been undergoing the sentence of imprisonment. Prior to 5. 1. 1984 he was in jail as an under-trial since 1. 4. 1983. His mother was co-accused/co-convict with him. She died during the currency of this convictional period. He thus suffered bereavement over the death of his mother which took place on 30. 1. 1985. He has undergone 9 months and 4 days detention as an under-trial. He has undergone 12 years, 3 months and 10 days detention as a convict. He has thus undergone 13 years and 14 days imprisonment in jail. He has earned remissions to the extent of 6 years, 3 months and 10 days. Besides, he has enjoyed one parole of 2 months, duration and one furlough to the tune of one month and 12 days duration. He has thus undergone total imprisonment to the extent of 19 years, 7 months and 6 days. He is required to undergo 10 years actual imprisonment and 14 years imprisonment including remissions. He has undergone 19 years, 7 months and 6 days imprisonment in total including remissions.

(2.) THE Government of Haryana took a policy decision and issued instructions in the exercise of powers vesting with the Government under Article 161 of the Constitution of India to release the convict-prisoners prematurely and directed vide letter 7483/2/jj/30099 dated 18. 11. 1987 to put up the cases of those prisoners/convicts who could be released prematurely. Vide letter No. 36/11/88-JJ (2) dated 28. 9. 1988, the Government of Haryana issued fresh instructions to initiate the cases for premature release of the eligible convicts/prisoners of different categories. The petitioner's case was also falling within one of those categories. Still his case was not recommended by the Jail Authorities to the Government for decision under the aforesaid instructions. The Government of Haryana revised the said instructions and issued fresh instructions vide letter dated 19. 11. 1991 regarding the premature release of convicts/prisoners categorising them under different categories. These instructions are embodied in Annexure P/2. According to these instructions also, he had qualified for his premature release as his case also falls within the ambit of Clause 2 (b) of these instructions. Under the instructions of 1991 Clause 2 (b) adult life-convicts who have been imprisoned for life but whose cases are not covered by Clause 2 (a) and who have committed crimes which are not considered heinous as mentioned in Clause 2 (a) or for other life convicts imprisoned for life for offences for which death penalty is not a punishment/ their cases may be considered after 10 years of actual sentence including under trial period, provided that the total period of such sentence including remissions is not less than 14 years. The Superintendent Central Jail, Ambala forwarded his case for premature release to the State Government as he was fully satisfied that he was entitled to be released in view of Section 2 (b)of the 1991 instructions as the crime committed by him was not heinous. So far no decision has been taken by the State Government on the recommendation of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala. Government of Haryana has supplemented the instructions dated 19. 11. 1991 (Annexure P/2) by the instructions dated 4. 2. 1993 (Annexure P/3 ). The petitioner has given similar instances where the convicts/prisoners have been allowed premature release in view of Clause 2 (b) of the instructions dated 19. 11. 1991 (Annexure P/2 ). In a sense, the prayer of the petitioner is that his case falls within the ambit of Clause 2 (b) of the instructions dated 4. 2. 1993 (Annexure P/3 ). He in entitled to be allowed premature release as he has undergone 10 years of actual sentence and more than 14 years of sentence including remissions. The premature release cannot be denied simply because it is likely to affect peace and tranquillity in the locality, particularly when there is no basis for the formation of such an opinion. Similarly premature release cannot be denied because there are strained relations of the convict with the opposite party.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's case falls within the ambit of Clause 2 (b) of the instructions (Annexure P/2) dated 19. 11. 1991, according to which adult life convicts who have been imprisoned for life but whose cases are not covered under Clause 2 (a) and who have committed crimes which are not considered heinous, as mentioned in Clause 2 (a) or other life convicts imprisoned for offences for which death penalty is not a punishment; their cases may be considered after completion of 10 years of actual sentence including under trial period, provided that the total period of such sentence including remissions is not less than 14 years. Under Clause 2 (b) of instructions (Annexure P/3) dated 4. 2. 1993, adult life convicts who have been imprisoned for life but whose cases are not covered under Clause 2 (a) and who have committed crimes which are not considered heinous as mentioned in Clause 2 (a), their cases may be considered after the completion of 10 years imprisonment including the under trial period, provided that the total period of such sentence including remissions is not less than 14 years.