Chandan vs State of Haryana

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

The petitioner has prayed for his premature release under instructions issued by the Haryana Government on November 19, 1991, Annexure RI.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner was arrested on August 15, 1982, for an offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted on September 13, 1993, by the Sessions Court and was awarded life imprisonment. The petitioner has contended that till the date of filing of the petition, he has undergone 12 years 9 months and 11 days actual sentence and has earned 6 years 4 months and 12 days remissions. Thus, he has undergone 19 years of sentence. Under the instructions Annexure P1, his case does not fall under para 2(a) but it falls under para 2(b). He is not convicted of committing any heinous offence. His case though recommended by the jail authorities has been wrongly dismissed by the respondents holding that his case falls under para 2(a) of the said instructions. Hence he prays that he be released prematurely.

The respondents have filed reply. According to them, the petitioner has undergone 13 years and 22 days actual sentence and has earned 6 years 6 months and 22 days remissions. Thus, even according to them, uptill now he has undergone 19 years 7 months and 14 days sentence inclusive of remissions. The petitioner''s case was recommended by the jail authorities. It was not recommended by the State Level Committee and hence it was rejected by the State Government on the ground that his case falls under para 2(a) of the said instructions. Unless he completes 14 years of actual sentence including undertrial period and earns 6 years remissions, his case cannot be considered.

The respondents have produced Annexure RII, wherein facts of the case are enumerated in para No. 2. From these facts it is apparent that the petitioner wanted to marry a girl who was married to Ranbir with the efforts of Shimbhu 11/2 years prior to the incident. Consequently the petitioner and his mother started nursing a grudge against Shimbhu. On the date of incident, accused petitioner Chandan armed with a Lathi and coaccused armed with a Ballam belaboured Shimbhu. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner gave only Lathi blows to the deceased, while the coaccused gave him spear blows and thus Shimbhu succumbed to the injuries sustained in the incident. In my considered view, the State Government has wrongly held that the petitioner''s case falls under para 2(a) of the said instructions. He is not convicted of any heinous crime. It is an ordinary murder case with motive as the petitioner wanted to marry the girl who was married to another man on the intervention of Shimbhu.

The second objection of the respondents is that the petitioner has been convicted of jail offence of February 9, 1984, when he had helped four prisoners to escape from jail, for which he was removed from remission system for one year. That offence was committed by him in 1984 and he has already suffered its penalty. In Subhash v. State of Haryana, 1994(3) Recent C.R. 489 , it is held that if such a convict had been punished for jail offences, that will not come in his way while seeking relief of premature release. In my considered view also, this penalty of jail offence cannot impede the petitioner''s way in getting the sought for relief because it is 10 years old jail offence and further the petitioner has already suffered its penalty.

Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to reconsider the petitioner''s petition for premature release, treating it to be a case failing under para 2(b) of the said instructions and to pass a speaking and well reasoned order within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. They are further directed to convey the order to the petitioner.