AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pritpal Singh, J.
Bohar Singh, who is undergoing life imprisonment, has filed this petition that he may be prematurely released as he has already completed the requisite minimum sentence inclusive of the error spent in detention before conviction.
This petition is contested by the respondentState of Punjab on the plea that the period spent in detention before conviction can not be counted towards requisite sentence for considering premature release case of the petitioner.
Thus, the point involved in this case is whether for the purpose of considering the case of the petitioner the period of detention undergone by him as under trial prisoners before his conviction can be taken into consideration . On this point the Supreme Court recorded two conflicting judgments; one in Kartar Singh and others v. State of Haryana, 1983(1) Supreme Court Reports 445, and the other in Sukh Lal Handsa and others v. State of West Bengal, W.P. (Crl.) No. 112829 of 1982, decided on March 9, 1983. Noticing the divergent views expressed in these judgments the matter has been referred to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1266 of 1982 and Criminal Appeal No. 754 of 1983. It is, therefore, only proper that the premature release case of the petitioner must await the decision of the Supreme Court. Consequently, at this stage no direction can be issued to the State of Punjab to decide the case by taking into consideration the period spent by the detenu as undertrial.
It is contended by the petitioner''s counsel that till the decision of the Supreme Court the petitioner may be released on bail. This prayer is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab. A similar point arose before me in Criminal Writ Petition No. 155 of 1984 and I ordered that the detenu be released on bail till the decision of the Supreme Court I do not find any reason to deviate from earlier decision.
Consequently, it is ordered that the petitioner Bohar Singh be released on bail, to await decision of the Supreme Court in Crl. Writ Petition No. 1266 of 1982 and Criminal Appeal No. 754 of 1983, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot.
It is clarified that if the respondent Punjab State after the decision of the Supreme Court declines the premature release case of the petitioner, it can apply for cancellation of bail. The petitioner in that eventuality will be equally entitled to assail the order of the State refusing to release him prematurely. This petition is disposed of in these terms.