PREMWATI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Criminal Misc. Petition filed by Premwati under Section 482 Cr. P.C. whereby she has prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents for considering her case for premature release in accordance with the instructions Annexure P.1. It is alleged by her in support of her prayer that the State Government has issued instructions on 28.11.1977 vide letter No. 7883/JJ/77/3009. In the year 1984 policy regarding premature release of life convicts was revised and the instructions were issued afresh by the Government. Further instructions on the subject were revised in the year 1988 and 1991 by the Government. So far as her case is concerned, the instructions in force on 28.9.1988 will govern it because allegedly the offence was committed in February, 1990 and the conviction was recorded on 20.4.1991 and the subsequent instructions were issued on 19.11.1991 which would not be applicable. Instructions Annexure P -1 were issued vide letter No. 43/15783/JJ(2), dated 28.9.1988. which were in substitution of the previous instructionss. She is entitled to have her case considered for premature release in the light of the instructions Annexure P.1 in view of the law laid down in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab & others 1996 (1) Recent Criminal Cases 197: [1996(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 648]. As per these instructions Annexure P.1 the case of a female for premature release has to be considered after completion of six years of actual sentence including undertrial/detention period and total sentence of 10 years including remissions. She has already undergone the substantive sentence about 6 years and 6 months and total sentence of more than ten years including remissions. Action of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. She should have been given some remission which equally have been given to other co -prisoners. As per instructions the following remissions were granted by the Government :

(2.) THE respondents opposed this petition urging that she committed heinous crime falling within the ambit of Section 304 -B of the Indian Panal Code. Her case for premature release will fall within the ambit of Para 2 (d) of the instructions Annexure R.1. The petitioner is labouring under wrong impression that her case for premature release falls within the ambit of Para 2 (b) of the said instructions. No such remissions as have been pleaded by the petitioner have been awarded to convicts convicted of offence falling within the ambit of Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AAG Haryana and have gone through the record.