SATBIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is criminal misc. petition filed by Satbir s/o Ram Sarup whereby he has prayed the quashing of order dated 31.8.1995 (Annexure P3) the same being illegal, arbitrary, un -constitutional and against the instructions of the Government issued from time to time as well as instructions embodied in Annexure P2 dated 4.2.1993 and has prayed that respondents be directed to release him forthwith and that his further detention in jail amounts to clog on his liberty not warranted by any law.

(2.) IT is stated by Satbir in this criminal misc. petition that he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide order dated 10.10.1979 under Section 302/436 of the Indian Penal Code (in case FIR No. 66 dated 19.4.1979 of P.S. Saddar, Rohtak). He has been in jail all through. During this period, he has remained in jail for 16 years 11 months and 6 days. He has earned remissions to the tune of 6 years. During the period, he has remained in jail, his behaviour in jail has been highly orderly. He has enjoyed paroles and furloughs. During the period he was on parole or furlough, there was no untoward incident attributable to him. Vide Annexure P2, the Government of Haryana has laid down guidelines governing the pre -mature release of the life convicts. His case for premature release was recommended by the Superintendent Jail to the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, as his case fell within the ambit of these instructions. His case for premature release was put up before the State Level Committee. State Level Committee deferred the consideration of his case for premature release to one year on the ground that he had committed jail offence on 7.2.1981 and 30.5.1983. State Level Committee felt that during the period during which his case for premature release will remain deferred, the Superintendent Jail will watch his conduct. There is order Annexure P3 passed by the State Level Committee to this effect. It is stated that the State Level Committee considered his case for premature release as under para 2 (a) of the Instructions Annexure P2. State Level Committee unjustifiably released his case for premature release vide order Annexure P3. He is suffering from T.B. and is under treatment of Medical College, Rohtak. Annexure P4 is the medical out patient card. He is not a previous convict. He has never indulged in prejudicial activities nor he is habitual offender.

(3.) RESPONDENTS opposed this prayer of the petitioner urging that there is no infringement of any legal right inhering in the petitioner. Concession of premature release cannot be claimed as matter of right. He has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Imprisonment for life means, imprisonment for whole of the remaining life of the prisoner. He cannot claim his premature release unless the State reduces or remits the remaining part of the sentence. He has undergone detention to the tune of 17 years 1 month and 22 days in jail. He has remained on parole to the tune of 6 months 2 days. He has earned remissions to the tune of 7 years 10 months and 25 days. He has undergone total sentence including remissions to the tune of 24 years 6 months and 15 days. His case for premature release was considered by the State Level Committee on 31.8.1995. State Level Committee was of the opinion that his conduct should be watched by Superintendent Jail for one year and thereafter his case for premature release shall be re -considered. His case for premature release was rejected by the Government on 17.10.1995 in view of the serious jail offence having been committed by him. State Government observed that his case for premature release will be re -considered after one year. His case for premature release will, thus, be reconsidered after 17.10.1996.