(1.) THIS petition, as well as Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 247 of 1989 (Tarsem Singh v. State of, Punjab); 818 of 1989 (Gora Singh v. State of Punjab); 1344 of 1989 (Gurprem Singh v. State of Punjab); 1747 of 1989 (Jit Singh v. State of Punjab); 1749 of 1989 (Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab) and 1753 of 1980 (Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab), shall be disposed of by one judgment as common questions of law and fact are involved.
(2.) ACCORDING to the averments in. the aforesaid writ petitions the individual prisoners were convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, after coming into force of Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The prisoners in all the aforesaid petitions except the prisoner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1749 of 1989 (Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab), have already undergone more than 8-1/2 years of actual sentence, whereas Amrik Singh, who was below 20 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence has already, undergone actual sentence of more than five years. As such the prisoners in all the aforesaid writ petitions are entitled to grant of premature release.
(3.) IN the aforesaid cases, admittedly, the mercy petitions moved by the prisoners for grant of premature release are pending with the State Government for the last more than three months. It is for the State Government to exercise its power under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and to grant, whatever relief it deems fit to the said prisoners. However, the State has to make up its mind and decide the mercy petitions for premature release within a reasonable, time I am supported in my view by the latest Supreme Court authority in Sadhu and others v. State of Madnya Pradesh and others, Criminal Writ Petition No. 651 of 1986, decided on 20th April, 1987, wherein the State Government was directed to consider application for premature release of the detenu within four months from the date of receipt of such application.