Billu vs State of Haryana and ors.

S. S. Grewal, J.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, relates to grant of premature release to the petitioner who, was arrested in a case under sections 148/302/149 of the Indian Penal Code on 30.3.1981. He was convicted under Section 30" of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide order of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, dated 15.1.83.

According to the petitioner actual period of sentence undergone by him together with detention before the conviction is 10 years and 5 months. Besides, he earned remissions to the extent of 5 years and 10 days. Thus the period of sentence undergone by him together with period for which he earned remissions exceeds 14 years it was further pleaded that since the State Government did not decide his case for premature release, he filed Criminal Misc. No. 1364M of 1991 which was decided by Harbans Singh Rai J. on 29th April, 1991. The State was directed to decide the case of the petitioner for grant of premature release within three months failing which it was ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail.

The State Government vide its order dated 4.6.11991 rejected the case for grant of premature release of the petitioner with the following observations :

"Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the committee is of the opinion that his premature release case may be reconsidered after one year."

The allegations of the petitioner have been controverted in the return filed by the State.

The learned counsel for the parties'' were heard.

On behalf of the petitioner, it was mainly urged that the impugned order of rejection is not a legal and valid order in as much as it does not give any reason for withholding the concession of premature release to the petitioner and that possibility of arbitrariness on the part of the State Government cannot be ruled out in treating different persons differently under the same set of instructions and similar circumstances.

In Gurbux Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1990(2) Recent Criminal Reports 213 : 1990(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 916. , it was observed by single Bench of this Court that it transpires that the State Government had failed to give any cogent reason for withholding the Concession of premature, release to the petitioner as per the guidelines contained in its own instructions dated 12.12.85.

It seems that the petitioner was not granted premature release in view of the coming into force of the new instructions in the State of Haryana dated 19th November, 1991 and his request for grant of premature release was declined for one year. Even according to the instructions dated 28.9.88 the petitioner was entitled to be considered for grant of premature release, which were in force at the time the impugned order of rejection was passed i.e. on 4.6.91. Since the petitioner fulfills all the necessary conditions for grant of premature release his case would be covered by Clause 2(b) of the new instructions dated 19.11.91 as he has already completed ten years of actual sentence including under trial period and the same together with remissions earned by him exceeds 14 years.

A careful perusal of the impugned order does not indicate any cogent reason for not granting premature release to the petitioner. There would be no legal bar for the State Government to reconsider the case of the petitioner for his premature release before the expiry of one year after passing of the impugned order of rejection dated 4.6.91. The State in its return has pleaded that fresh case for grant of premature release of the petitioner according to the new instructions has already been sent to the Additional Director General of Prisons, Haryana on 19th of November 1991.

For the foregoing reasons the State is again directed to reconsider the case for grant of premature release of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above by passing a speaking order within three months from today. This petition is ''allowed to the extent indicated above. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary to Government of Haryana, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, for compliance.