HARI CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Hari Chand has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of the habeas corpus directing the respondents to release the petitioner from illegal custody forthwith. It is contended inter alia that the petitioner along with four other persons was convicted under sections 325, 323, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years by Additional Sessions Judge Sonepat, on 7th November, 1981, that their appeals were dismissed by this Court and the special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court, that the petitioner has already undergone the sentence taking into account remissions earned by him and is entitled to be released in view of the special remissions allowed by the State Government under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. and that his co -accused, namely, Ram Kanwar son of Mool Chand and Ram Kanwar son of Dei Ram have already been released by the jail authorities. Copy of the order dated 18th January, 1981, with regard to special remissions is attached as Annexure P.2.

(2.) DESPITE repeated requests, respondents have failed to file any return for more than a month since after filing of the present petition. Rule 13 of Chapter IV -F of Rules and Orders of Punjab High Court, Volume V, provides that a copy of the return shall be filed in the office and a copy supplied to the petitioner through his counsel three days before the date fixed for appearance and the matter shall be heard and disposed of on the date fixed notwithstanding the fact that the return has been filed or not. The date fixed for appearance in this case was 14th May, 1987. On that day, at the request of Mt. Ajai Lamba, Advocate, who appeared for Advocate General, Haryana, the case was adjourned to 2nd June, 1987 and today as well he failed to file any return. It was also held in Ajmer Kaur v. Shri R.D. Joshi, District Magistrate, Sangrur and the State of Punjab, 1975 Punjab Law Journal Criminal, 31 that in a petition for habeas corpus, the question involved is of the liberty of the citizen and in such cases the authorities who impose curbs on the freedom of movement of the citizens are expected to, be ready with the return and other documents in support of the order of detention as and when they appear in court in response to a rule nisi. It has been further observed that the proceedings cannot be treated in a casual manner and after declining the request for adjournment the detenu was ordered to be released forthwith. Relying on the said ruling of This Court, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case, which should he be heard and disposed of without waiting any more, for filing of the return.

(3.) THE contention the petitioner which remains unrebutted on the record in indicative of the fact that his case for release deserves attention of the authorities, particularly when alleged release of the co -accused Ram Kanwar son of Mool Chand and Ram Kanwar son of Dei Ram amounts to be a cause of discrimination, if the contention of the petitioner is correct.