Billu vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 8119M of 1992 Billu v. State of Haryana and others and Criminal Misc. Petition No. 8120M of 1992 Desi v. State of Haryana and others.

Both the petitioners were tried for the offence of murder by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa and were sentenced to imprisonment for life vide judgment, dated 1511993. After their arrest in the case, they were confined continuously behind the bars and had undergone more than 11 years actual sentence and earned remissions exceeding 5 years 6 months years actual sentence and earned remissions They were not found guilty of any jail offence during entire period of their sentence. The case of the petitioners for premature release was recommended by the Superintendent Central Jail, Hissar but the StateGovernment failed to decide the case. The petitioners filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in this court and the court directed the State Government to decide their case within three months. This order was passed on 2991991. The case of the petitioners was then considered by the Government and it was ordered that the case will be considered after one year. This state Government was again assailed and it, was quashed. The State Government was directed to reconsider the case for grant of premature release of the petitioners. In spite of the order, the petitioners were not released and their case was rejected after reconsideration on the ground that they had committed a henious crime and they will be eligible for consideration of their premature release case after undergoing actual sentence for 14 years including undertrial period and after earning remissions atleast, for six years. The petitioners have thus filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 276/227 of the Constitution of India for directing the respondents to release them forthwith on usual terms and conditions.

The petitioners alleged that they fulfilled all the requisite conditions for grant of premature release under the instructions Annexure P2 and Annexure P4. As per instructions Annexure P4, they were required to undergo 10 years'' actual sentence and 16 years sentence including remissions. They have served the requisite sentence and there was hardly any reason to deny them the benefit, of premature release. More so when two of their coaccused have already been released by the Government in exercise of its powers under Article 161, of the Constitution of India.

In the return filed by the respondents, this fact was admitted that the petitioners had undergone more than 10 years actual sentence including under trial period and more than 16 years sentence including remissions but it was maintained State Level Committee after considering all the aspects of the matter recommended that the case of the petitioners may be reconsidered under Para 2(a) of the Government instructions dated 19111991, when they complete 14 years'' actual sentence including under trial period and after earning atleast 6 years remissions. The Government accepted the recommendations of the Committee and the case of the petitioners will be considered now on completion of 14 years of actual sentence.

I have heard Mr. V. K. Jindal learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. S. Gill, Assistant Advocate General for the State.

The learned counsel for the petitioners (sic) had not committed any offence which could be considered as henious and their case did not fall under clause (a) of the instructions dated 19111991 Annexure R. 2. Annexure R1 (in both the cases) is a copy of the order wherein it was observed that the petitioners had committed murder of Babu Singh and Bhola Singh and injured five other persons in connection with a dispute over 10 kanals of land. The facts and circumstances of the case revealed henious nature of crime committed by them and their case was, therefore, to be reconsidered under para. 2(a) of the Government Instructions Annexure R2. The learned counsel referred to para 2(a) of the instructions and contended that case of the petitioners was not covered by these instructions. A henious crime as defined in this clause is as under

"Murder under TADA Act, murder with wrongful confinement for extortionl robbery, murder with rape, murder Uhile undergoing life sentence, murder with decoity, murder with Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, murder in connection with dowry, bride burning, murder of child under the age of 14 years, murder of handicap pregnant woman, or murder after abduction or kidnapping, on professional/hire basis, murder exhibiting brutality as cutting the body into pieces or burning/dragging the body as evident from the judgment of sentence, persistent bad conduct in the prisons and those who can not for some definite reasons be prematurely released without danger to public safety, or convicts who have been imprisoned for life under Section 120D of IPC or life convicts who have been impugned for life second time for any offence.

A perusal of the above definition bows that the case of petitioners is not covered under this clause. Earlier too, the petitioners had approahced this court with regard to their premature release and an order copy of which is Annexure P5 was passed wherein it was specifically observed that the petitioners fulfilled all the necessary conditions for grant of premature release so their case would be covered by clause 2(b) of the instructions dated 19111991 as they had completed 10 years actual sentence including undertrial period and the same together with remissions earned by them was more than 14 years. The respondents were thus not justified in rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground that they had committed henious crime and their case was covered under clause (a). It has been specifically mentioned in the petition that the coaccused of the petitioner were released by the Government, in exercise of the powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and this fact has not been denied by the respondents nor it has been explained as to how the case of the petitioners was distinguishable from that of their coaccused The impugned order, therefore, is bad being discriminatory.

The learned counsel for the State did not address any argument justifying the action of the Government in postponing the premature release case of the petitioners on the ground that they committed henious crime.

In view of the above discussion I accept both the petitions and direct the respondents to release the petitioners forthwith on usual terms and conditions.