NAVAL KISHORE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking his premature release.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of FIR dated October 3, 1971 the petitioner was arrested on October 5, 1972 for an offence of murder. He was convicted on March. 2 1974, for this offence and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was bailed out in 1974 and he surrendered in February 1975. For this offence he has undergone 10 years 5 months 10 days actual sentence and has earned remissions for 17 years 8 months 21 days. He filed a petition in the High Court for his premature release. He was released on bail on July 23. 1983 pending issuance of order of premature release by the Government. When he was on bail on October 13.1987, he committed another murder. He was arrested on the same day. Judgment in that case was delivered on August. 12, 1988. He was held guilty of the said offence and was again sentenced to imprisonment for life. For this offence he has undergone 8 years 6 months 19 days as on May 28.1996 and 9 years 3 months 19 days as on February 28, 1997. He has earned 15 years 22 days remissions as on May 28. 1996.

(3.) The petitioners contention is that as per Government instructions dated November 19, 1971 (Annexure P3) and December 12. 1985 (Annexure P4) he is entitled to premature release on completion of 8-1/2 years of actual sentence and 14 years with remissions. His petition for premature release was declined by the Government as the district authorities reported that this life convict is a drunkard gambler and a person of ill-repute and that he is involved in double murder case. The petitioner has filed Panchayatnama (Annexure P-2) dated January 13, 1997, recommended by Bal Krishan Bali, Councillor, Jalandhar, and other residents of the Mohalla that the petitioner bears a good moral character. He availed 12/13 paroles without any written complaint from police or from the residents of the area. The residents of his vicinity recommended his release prematurely. The petitionerTs conduct inside the jail was also satisfying. He was never punished for any jail offence. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to premature release. It is also alleged that the State Level Committee has not recommended his case for premature release on the ground that he has committed double murder. But from the facts stated above, it is obvious that he is not held guilty for double murder. He committed first murder and when under the orders of the High Court, awaiting Government orders for his premature release he was on bail he committed another murder. For that murder he was convicted on August 12, 1988. His first sentence of life imprisonment has been merged in second sentence. It is also mentioned that the State Government has issued instructions on December 18, 1996 (Annexure P-5), according to which there is no condition to withhold the premature release of such life prisoners. Hence he prayed that he be granted the relief of premature release.