SURINDER KUMAR @ CHHINDA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURINDER Kumar alias Chhinda, petitioner has filed the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction to the respondents for his premature release which has been allegedly denied to the petitioner by placing reliance on Annexure P.2 dated 30.12.1992 mainly on two grounds that the petitioner had committed jail offences from time to time starting from 1983 onwards and secondly that he committed heinous nature of crime. The stand of the State is that keeping in view the gravity of offence and persistent bad conduct of prisoner in the jail his case of premature release could only be considered after the completion of 14 years actual sentence including undertrial period and after earning six years remission. Both the defences taken up by the State have been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the last alleged jail offence was committed by the petitioner on 31.5.1989 and its effect stands diluted and evaporated after the expiry of 3 years. In these circumstances the order Annexure P.2 passed on 30.12.1992 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Mr. Jindal further submits that his client has already completed 14 years of sentence in view of the relevant instructions prevalent at the time of the conviction of the petitioner. Any further condition imposed by the respondents upon the petitioner that the latter should also earn at least six years of remission is unwarranted.

(2.) THE last submission which was raised by Mr. Jindal on behalf of the petitioner was that the petitioner could be deprived of his premature release only if the Govt. formulates an opinion that the case of the petitioner is covered within the meaning of definition of intractably savage delinquents.

(3.) THE submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been opposed by the learned AAG, appearing on behalf of the respondents namely on the ground that the petitioner had committed heinous nature of crime of murder and that he had not earned six years of remission and, therefore, orders Annexure P.2 has been rightly passed specially in view of the fact that the petitioner was a habitual offender when he was punished for the jail offences.