HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE . Mr. Vikas Cuccria, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State -respondent, accepts notice. Copy of the petition has been given to him in Court today.

(2.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside Annexure P -4, the impugned order, by which the respondents had cancelled the earlier order directing the premature release of the petitioner. Annexure P -4, the impugned order dated 20.8.1996 reads as under : "Reference your letter No. 4642 -G. l/G -4 dated 25.7.1996 on the subject noted above. The premature release orders passed in the case of Harbhajan Singh s/o Bur Singh vide No. l/12/93 -1H7/8133 dated 25.4.1995 have been re - considered by the Government and the same has been cancelled. The prisoner has committed more than one murder. The bail of the prisoner be got cancelled and the same be admitted to jail and thereafter Government be informed. Deputy Secretary Home." To my mind Annexure P -4 is liable to be set aside on the ground that it is violative of principles of natural justice and is hit by the doctrine of 'audi alteram partem'. The petitioner admittedly was prematurely released vide order dated 25.4.1995 and in furtherance to that order the petitioner was released from the jail upon furnishing bail bonds and acceptance thereof by the competent Court. The petitioner along with five other co -accused was convicted for an offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code and was awarded imprisonment for life, imprisonment for seven years, imprisonment for one year and imprisonment for six months on different counts. However, all these substantive sentences were awarded to each accused and were directed to run concurrently. Vide different orders of the Government/Competent authority four co -accused were prematurely released during the period of December, 1992, to December, 1993. The petitioner, as already noticed, was released in May, 1995, on the basis of an order dated 25.4.1995 passed by the competent authority.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the orders of premature release passed in the case of other co - accused have not been revoked or cancelled, but the State has passed an order only revoking/cancelling the earlier order of premature release in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner, obviously, was neither given any show -cause notice nor was he heard by the concerned authorities before passing the impugned order.