Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

The petitioner, who is undergoing life imprisonment for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the IPC has prayed for direction holding that further detention of the petitioner, particularly when he has completed 8 years actual sentence and 14 years of sentence, including remission, has become illegal and arbitrary and is violative of the Constitution of India and that under the instructions dated 8.7.1991, the petitioner fulfils all the requisite conditions and has become eligible for consideration of his case for premature release. He has also prayed that the period of parole while undergoing the sentence is a part of the actual sentence and it has to be subtracted from the total sentence.

The petitioner had made an application for premature release. By Annexure P4, the said request was rejected. It is mentioned therein that the premature release case of the petitioner was considered and rejected by competent authority. The petitioner had filed Crl. Misc. No. 16886M of 1995 before this Court. This Court had allowed the petition. It has held that in the said order, the respondents have not given any reasons for declining the case of premature release. This Court in its operative part of this judgment observed as below:

"In view of these facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider afresh the case of the petitioner convict for premature release in accordance with the relevant instructions dated 6.3.1995 (Annexure P4) under which the case for premature release of the petitioner was initiated. Needless to say that the respondents will consider and dispose of the case of premature release of the petitioner expeditiously, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order from this court or a certified copy thereof from the petitioner. This petition is disposed of accordingly."

This judgment was delivered on 9.2.1996 by this Court. Thereafter, on 10.5.1996, the Government passed the order Annexure R1. It is astonishing to note that inspite of the fact that it was observed by this Court that the earlier order did not spell out any reason, the same thing has been repeated by the respondents. It is a pity that the respondents have not been able to appreciate the clear observations in the judgment though only ground which has been given for the rejection in Annexure R1 is that he has committed murder on three counts (repetition of ground mentioned in Annexure P4). It is not mentioned as to how a person who has committed murder on three counts" cannot get the benefit of his premature release as per the Circular. Needless is to say that when this reason is not substantiable, the petitioner shall be entitled to get the benefit of premature release because no other reason has been stated in the order Annexure P1. In other words, the respondents are bound by the short reasons given in Annexure R1 for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner.

At the time of arguments also, it has not shown to me that a person who has committed triple murder cannot be granted benefit of premature release. The respondents have not specified the provisions by which such rejection of the application on such ground is maintainable. It may be stated that the petitioner has produced orders Annexure P2 and P3 regarding remissions in which there is a mention as to the categories of prisoners to which the orders are not applicable. The respondents cannot go beyond the policy and invent special cause for rejection in the case of the petitioner, if it is not provided in the order applicable for the same.

In view of the above reasons, this petition is allowed. The order Annexure R1 is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the prayer of premature release of the petitioner in the light of the above observations within a period of 15 days from the receipt of a copy of this order.

A copy of this order be given dasti to learned Advocate for the petitioner.