BALJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was arrested on 7.9.1986 in a case registered as FIR No. 174 dated 7.9.1986 and was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Jind on 25.2.1987. Even according to the reply filed by the respondents, the petitioner has, as on 12.3.1997, undergone 10 years and 6 months of actual imprisonment including the under-trial period and parole period, earned remissions of 5 years 9 months and 1 day. The total sentence undergone by him comes to 16 years 3 months and 1 day. The petitioner claims that he should have been prematurely released taking into consideration the instructions of the Haryana Government vide memo No. 36/11/86-JJ(2) dated 28.9.1988, since he has already undergone more than 8-1/2 years of substantive detention and a total period of 14 years including remissions. This request of the petitioner was considered by the respondents and rejected by them under annexure P-3 dated 26.11.1996 on the ground that the petitioner had killed one Pala aged 25 years and his brother Vinod aged 5 years and injured 4 persons by firing six shots from his licenced DBBL gun. The Committee made the recommendation not to release the petitioner mainly on the basis that the petitioner had committed murders of two persons of whom one was a child of 5 years. The committee recommended that his case be considered after completion of 14 years of actual sentence including the under-trial period and after earning at least 6 years remissions in accordance with the instructions of the Government dated 4.2.1993 (annexure P-2).

(2.) BUT the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that his case is not governed by the instructions of the Haryana Government dated 4.2.1993 (Annexure P-2) and that he is governed by the instructions which were in vogue at the time of his conviction i.e. the instructions dated 28.9.1988 (Annexure P-1). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is supported by a decision of this Court in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(1) RCR 463. That was a case which had arisen from the State of Punjab. This Court held that a convict will be governed by the Punjab Government instructions for premature release which were in force when the petitioner was convicted. This decision will apply to the case of the petitioner also. Therefore, the rejection of the request of the petitioner to release him prematurely on the basis of the instructions issued on 4.2.1993 (Annexure P-2) is neither legal nor proper.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , this petition is allowed. The order Annexure P-3 rejecting the request of the petitioner is set aside and the respondents are directed to pass an order for the release of the petitioner forthwith.