BAIWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Balwant Singh has filed the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of direction to the respondents holding that the petitioner fulfills all the requisite conditions for grant of his premature release and that his further detention has become violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner was convicted for the double murder under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Sections 307 and 120-B I.P.C. and was awarded life imprisonment vide judgment dated 4-12-1987. As per the instructions applicable on the date of his conviction as issued by the Haryana Government regarding premature release the petitioner is supposed to serve 8-1/2 years actual sentence and 14 years sentence including remissions for the purpose of premature release. It is the common case of the parties that the petitioner has fulfilled this condition. The case of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents mainly on the ground that since he has committed three murder therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of premature release as per the government instructions and policy. Secondly, as per recent instructions and petitioner has not served.14 years actual sentence. As I have stated above that as per the instructions applicable on the date of the conviction of the petitioner he has already completed those conditions. These instructions in the cases of premature release are supposed to be made applicable by the State Government as held in various decisions of this Court as well as by the Honble Supreme Court, but qua one I can take this court from the order dated 3-10-1996 passed by this Court in case Madan Lal v. State of Haryana. It was observed by his Lordship, after deriving help from Bhupinder Singh v. State of Pujab, that those instructions will be applicable while deciding the case of the conviction of the petitioner is decided. No law to the contrary has been cited by the learned counsel for the respondents on this aspect. The second argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent was that the petitioner was guilty of more than one murder. This plea has also been rejected by this Court and for support I can draw attention to the judgment of this Court passed in Cri. M. No. 2570-M of 1996 decided on 17-1-1997. This judgment was based on the judgment passed in Kamail Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, wherein it was held as follows: Undisputedly, the petitioner had undergone actual sentence of 9 years 6 months including undertrial period as on 27-2-1995 and had also earned more than 6 years remission and the total of the actual sentence and remission would be more than 14 years. It is also undisputed that the petitioner was not guilty of any jail offence or misconduct during the period under consideration. So far as the list of offences mentioned at page 2 of the instructions dated 6-3-1995 whereunder the benefits mentioned in the instructions are not admissible to the prisoners, the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has not been mentioned nor it has been mentioned that the prisoner convicted of multiple murder will not be extended the said benefit. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 16886-M of 1995, Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, decided on 9-2-1996 to contend that in a case of multiple murder this Court held the instructions applicable and directed the respondents to consider the case of premature release of the petitioner under instructions referred to above. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is not intractably savage delinquent. Therefore, the State cannot take the defence that the petitioner was involved in double murder. In the guidelines issued by the State it has not been mentioned that a person involved in more than one murder will be deprived of the benefit of premature release. At the most it can be said that it is no ground to reject the case of a convict unless the case of such convict falls within the category of intractably savage delinquent. In this view of the matter I allow the present petition and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his premature release as per instructions, which were in force on the date of his conviction. The respondents shall not take the support of the instructions now applicable in the State of Haryana and the case of the petitioners shall also not be rejected on the ground that he committed more than one murder.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner would now be considered within two months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Petition allowed.