KULWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner, a life convict, the facts may briefly be stated. The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing as many as four murders. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on 1.6. 1978. In all, he had undergone 6 years 10 months and 17 days of imprisonment at the time when the present petition was filed. By now he has undergone more than 17 years as the petition for premature release was filed on 27. 1. 1988. Actually the period excluding remissions which the petitioner had spent in detention is 10 years 16 months and 11 days at the time of filing the petition. This petition has been opposed by the State of Punjab on the ground that the petitioner be not prematurely released as he has committed as many as four murders and that the crime committed by him is heinous. It has further been argued that the petitioner has not paid Rs. 28,000/- which was recoverable as compensation from him. The likelihood of apprehension of peace on account of non-payment of the amount and otherwise also in view of the gravity of the offence is yet another ground which has been pressed into service by the learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab. After considering the rival contentions advanced by both the learned counsel, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to have the concession of premature release. In my judgment in Criminal Writ Petition No 56 of 1988 (Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab and another), after referring to other judicial pronouncements, I have laid down some guidelines. The present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment in Mithu Singh's case (supra). In that case too, as many as four murders were committed by the accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner has shown me a photostat copy of a receipt evidencing the payment of the amount in question. If this fact is found to be incorrect, the State would be at liberty to re-arrest the petitioner.

(2.) IN view of the principles of law and guidelines laid down in Mithu Singh's case (supra), this petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released prematurely subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of 20,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Amritsar and on the undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour during the remaining on-expired period of imprisonment.