Balwant Singh vs State of Haryana

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing a direction to the State Government to release the petitioner forthwith as his further detention is illegal and unjustifiable.

The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner was sentenced on March 24, 1982, by the Sessions Judge, Jind, to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Prior to that he was in jail as an undertrial prisoner since August 30, 1981.

The petitioner''s contention is that except for the period when he was on parole he has undergone actual sentence of 12 years, 11 months and 16 days and has earned remissions of 6 years and three months. His case for premature release was forwarded to the State Government by respondents 2 and 3, but it was rejected on October 9, 1991, with a direction that it would be reviewed after one year (Annexure P2). Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed Crl. Misc. No. 7965M of 1992 in this Court for his premature release. During the pendency of that petition, his case was again forwarded to respondent No. 1 for consideration, but again the prayer was declined by order dated November 24, 1992 (Annexure P4) on the ground that he has committed a heinous crime and his case for premature release can be considered only when he undergoes 14 years actual sentence and 20 years of sentence inclusive of remissions. His earlier Crl. Misc. No. 7965M of 1992 was dismissed on February 17, 1994, on the ground that he had not assailed the order Annexure P4. It is also mentioned that twice he was warned for surrendering late after release on furlough. Otherwise his conduct in the jail has been good and he has not committed any jail offence. It is contended that his case does not fall under clause 2(a) of the Instructions issued by the Government of Haryana regarding premature release of life convicts Annexure P3). Rather his case falls under clause 2(b). Coaccused Sewa Singh has already been granted premature release by V.K. Bali, J. in Crl. Misc. No. 4601M of 1994 by order dated April 20, 1995. Hence it is prayed that he be granted premature release.

The respondents have filed reply. Their contention is that the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment, as he committed a heinous offence, his case falls under clause 2(a) of the aforesaid Instructions. Hence unless he undergoes 14 years actual sentence and 20 years sentence inclusive of remissions, this concession cannot be granted to him.

It is not disputed by the respondent that coaccused Sewa Singh has already been released on premature release by the aforesaid order. Copy of judgment dated March 24, 1982, of Sessions Judge, Jind, is on the file, which reveals how these accused persons belaboured the deceased with their weapons and caused his death. While committing this offence, petitioner Balwant Singh was armed with a Gandasi. Accused Sajjan Singh was also armed with a Gandasi. Accused Sewa Singh had a Takua, while accused Prem was armed with a Jaili. They all caused injuries to the deceased, who died on the spot. From Annexure P3 it is evident that this murder cannot be termed a heinous crime. No doubt, certain examples of heinous crimes are enumerated therein, though that list is not exhaustive, but this is not a coldblooded or barbarous murder. In Crl. Misc. No. 3228M of 1993 it is held that this offence falls under clause 2(b) and not under clause 2(a) of the said Instructions. In my considered view also, the petitioner''s offence falls under clause 2(b) of the said Instructions (Annexure P3). Hence, his petition for premature release can be considered at the present moment, as he has already undergone actual sentence of 12 years, 11 months and 16 days till date of the petition. The respondents have wrongly rejected his petition holding that his case falls under clause 2(a) of the said Instructions.

Another ground of objection is that the petitioner is convicted of jail offences. From Section 8(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, it is evident that if after availing parole or furlough the convict does not surrender within time and fails to satisfy the Superintendent of the Jail for his absence, he may be punished. Six types of punishments are enumerated therein. Warning is one of them. It is not disputed before me that twice when the petitioner was released on furlough, he surrendered on that very day when he was to surrender but instead of surrendering before lock up he could surrender after lock up. For both these lapses, he was warned as per provisions of law. This is not a jail offence. For these minor lapses, the petitioner cannot be denied premature release.

Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed. It is ordered that the petitioner be set at liberty if not required in any other case and subject to the conditions that may be imposed by the respondents.