BALWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The reliefs claimed by the petitioner in this petition are (i) that the order passed by respondents 1 and 2 rejecting the case of the petitioner for premature release may be held wrong, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of the policy of the Government and may be set aside and quashed and (ii) that the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for premature release and pass appropriate orders regarding his premature release.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he is undergoing life imprisonment awarded to him in a case under Sections 302/34 IPC in Open Air Jail, Bilaspur. He has already completed more than 14 years of sentence including parole and remission earned by him on the basis of his good conduct. At the time of the commission of the offence, he was below 20 years of age without any bad antecedents. It is further claimed that during his incarceration, his conduct and behaviour had been good. It is further case of the petitioner that premature release cases of convicts under 20 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence should be referred to the Government for consideration of premature -release after 8 years of actual sentence and 10 years including parole and remission. However, the petitioner was called upon to represent his case for premature release after four years of the relevant time and his case for release has been rejected solely on the ground that he has not completed 14 years term in the prison.

(3.) The present petition has been resisted by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner has not completed 14 years of actual imprisonment excluding parole, therefore, he is not entitled for premature release. In their reply, the respondents have denied that the conduct of the petitioner has been to the entire satisfaction of the Jail authorities and even disciplinary action had to be taken against him for surrendering 20 days late from parole and that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Government in the light of the premature mature release policy and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was rejected as it did not fall within the purview of these provisions.