GURMEJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Gurmej Singh has filed this criminal writ petition for his unconditional release forthwith as according to him his case for premature release was wrongly rejected and the said order of the State Government deserves to be quashed. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it is admitted that petitioner Gurmej Singh has undergone actual sentence of 9 years 10 months and had earned remissions for 7 years 7 months and 14 days, meaning thereby that be has already undergone, sentence of more than 17 years including remission. This reply was filed on 9.5.1988 and by now petitioner has completed his sentence of 17-1/2 years, as he continued to be in custody. Claim of the petitioner is that in the light of paragraph 516 B of the Punjab Jail Manual read with instructions issued by the State Government on 12.5.1977 and 28.12.1986 laying the guidelines for releasing convicts like him, he was entitled to be released having already completed 14 years sentence including remissions. Perhaps that is why the case of petitioner was recommended by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Gurdaspur. Keeping in view the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Lale v. State of U.P., 1987 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 244 and Delhi High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No 272 of 1985 Bachan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (Annexure P. 3) decided on 27 5 1986, a convict who has already undergone more than 15 years of imprisonment including remissions, should in normal course of events be released from jail unless the State authorities have strong reasons not to do so. Rejection order annexure P-2, does not provide any such reason It is simply mentioned therein that there are no extenuating circumstances or factors of any compassionate nature that warrant the premature release of the convict in this case. It is further added therein that Government after consideration of the relevant material (without indicating what that material is) is satisfied that it is not a fit case where remission should be granted at this stage. This does not make any one wiser with regard to the circumstances which weighed with the Government. No reference has been made to the grounds pleaded by the petitioner nor any reason is afforded for rejecting the same. The rejection order thus practically is silent as to why the petitioner is not entitled to the premature release. It is. admitted in the written statement that co-accused of the petitioner namely Sucha Singh has already been released prematurely.

(2.) FOR the foregoing reasons, I allow this petition and direct respondent No. 1, State of Punjab, to release petitioner Gurmej Singh from jail forthwith.