BIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As observed in the order passed on November 22, 1984, the petitioner had, by that time, undergone substantive sentence of 14 years 11 months and 16 days and total sentence undergone including remission was 21 years and 1 month. The substantive sentence undergone by now is a little over 15 years. The grounds on which the petitioner's case for premature release was not recommended to the Government by the Review Committee, were :

(2.) The norms which are prescribed for premature release of prisoners, inter alia, prescribe that the case for premature release may be referred to the Government after certain number of years of imprisonment suffered by different categories of prisoners provided :

(3.) In the instant case it is not in dispute that the petitioner has completed the minimum requisite period of imprisonment to qualify for the consideration of his case for premature release. The supplementary affidavit filed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, pursuant to the orders of the Court made on December 10, 1984 shows that during the entire period of imprisonment, the work and conduct of the petitioner has remained 'good' and nothing adverse has been reported against him. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons is present in the Court and, on being questioned, he stated that the petitioner has committed no jail offence during the entire period of his incarceration. The first two tests are, therefore, satisfied. The third test is incapable of being satisfied in the present case because the petitioner was never released on parole/furlough. Prima facie, therefore, the case deserved a positive consideration at the hands of the Review Committee the fact that the petitioner committed the murder of his father about two decades back on a slight provocation is not factor which could be held out against a favourable consideration of his case after such a long lapse of time especially in view of his jail record. The absence of an opportunity to watch his conduct outside jail for the reason of his not having been released on parole/furlough is again not a factor which could be legitimately pressed into service on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. There is no reason to assume that if the petitioner is granted the benefit of premature release, he would once again display criminal tendency. Such an assumption overlooks not only that the petitioner is not shown to be a habitual offender but also the reformatory aspect of the penalty procedure as well as the good record of the petitioner during the entire period of his imprisonment. The fact that nobody came forward to stand as a surety for the petitioner is also no proof of the fact that he has no roots in the society. A person in prison and even his relatives are ordinarily under a great disadvantage and it might not be possible in all cases for him or them by reason of penury, confinement and absence of influence in society, to find friends or, in some cases, even relatives to furnish a security bond, especially if the amount for which the bond is required to be executed is fixed without due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Let it not be forgotten that the affluents do not befriend indigents. There is no knowing on what basis the panchayat concerned apprehends 'breach of peace' if the petitioner is prematurely released. There is nothing to show that the petitioner has a history sheet. Besides, as revealed from the affidavit of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, the petitioner is an old man in weak health and, under such circumstances, the apprehension would appear to be more imaginary than real. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it would appear that the Review Committee has taken into consideration irrelevant factors and failed to apply its mind to the relevant aspect.