JAIPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been moved by Jaipal under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking his pre-mature release and for further holding that he has been illegally deprived of the benefits of pre-mature release and his further detention has become violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and that he is entitled to to be released forthwith on usual terms and conditions.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the petitioner along with his coaccused Vajinder Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat in case FIR No.162 dated 27.3.1987 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, Police Station City Sonepat vide judgment dated 25.2.1989 (Annexure P.1). While he was undergoing such imprisonment in District Jail, Karnal, he failed to surrender in jail after having exhausted the period of parole and furlough. He was tried under Section 8 read with Section 9 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the Act') and awarded various punishments on account of late surrender in jail. Vide judgment Annexure P. 2/A, he was convicted and sentenced by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- under Section 9 of the Act or in default of the same, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days in case FIR No. 580 dated 11.10.1998. Vide judgment Annexure P.2/B, he was convicted and sentenced by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- under the said Sections or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days in case FIR No. 318 dated 4.8.1999. Vide judgment Annexure P.2/C, he was convicted and sentenced by the said Court to undergo imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- under the afore- mentioned Sections and in default of payment of the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for five days. Vide judgment Annexure P.2/D, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- under the above-mentioned Sections and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for five days in case FIR No. 297 dated 9.10.2002, Police Station City Sonepat. On appeal, the sentence was reduced to four months though the fine was kept intact vide judgment Annexure P.2/D1 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. Vide judgment Annexure P.2/E, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 9 of the Act or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for five days in case FIR No. 91 dated 12.4.2004 under Section 8 read with Section 9 of the Act, Police Station City Sonepat. On appeal, the sentence was reduced to four months vide judgment Annexure P.2/E1 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. That the sentences awarded to the petitioner vide judgments referred to above have to run concurrently with imprisonment for life awarded vide judgment Annexure P.1.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.