Gurmeet Singh vs State of Punjab and anr.

K.S. Bhalla, J.—Petitioner Gurmeet Singh was sentenced to life imprisonment by Sessions Judge, Patiala on September 9, 1977, for the offence of murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. According to him, he was aged 18 years at the time of conviction and is being treated prisoner below 20 years of age. He claims to have actually undergone sentence of 10 years 9 months having been arrested since June 5, 1977 and earned remissions to the extent of 7 years 9 months and 24 days, meaning thereby, that he has undergone more than 10 years sentence including remissions when actual sentence undergone is more than 6 years. Therefore, on the basis of the instructions issued by the State Government for dealing with convicts who were below 20 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence contained in Annexure P 1 and P2, petitioner Gurmeet Singh has sought unconditional release forthwith through present petition contending that his case for premature release though considered in the years 1983 and 1985 was wrongly rejected, and he has already undergone sentence of more than 15 years. Petitioner Gurmeet Singh has further alleged that his case was initiated again on January 30, 1986 but no result was communicated to him till the filing of the present petition, although he presumes the same to have been rejected.

In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it is admitted that petitioner Gurmeet Singh has undergone about 10 years 9 months of actual sentence and has earned remissions for about 7 years. Petitioner Gurmeet Singh continued to be in custody even after filing of this reply and thus as per admission of the respondents as well he has already undergone sentence of more than 18 years. It is neither disputed in the written statement hat the petitioner was below 20 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence. Claim of the petitioner that in the light of paragraph 516B of the Punjab Jail Manual and instructions issued by the State Government dated May 12, 1987 annexure P1 and dated December 29 1986 annexure P2, laying the guidelines for the release of convicts like him was entitled to be released having already completed more than 18 years sentences including remissions, thus remains uncontested and perhaps that is why case of the petitioner was considered for premature release three times before. Presently initiated case of the petitioner was rejected on March 2 1, 1983 and Annexure P4 is a copy of the rejection order.

The law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lale v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1987 S.C C. (Criminal) 244 and Delhi High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 272 of 1985, Bachan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) Annexure P3, decided on May 27, 1986, is to the effect that a conviction who has already undergone more than 15 years of sentence including remissions should in normal course of events be released from jail unless there are very strong reasons not to do so. No such reason has been point out in the reply filed oh behalf of the respondents nor in the rejection order Annexure P4. It is simply mentioned therein that there are extenuating circumstances or other compassionate grounds to grant petitioner premature release. It is further added therein that the government after consideration of the relevant material (without indicating what that material is satisfied that it is not a fit case where remission should be granted at this stage. This observation of the State Government doe not make any one wiser with regard to the circumstances which weigh with it in coming to the conclusion against the petitioner. No reference has been made to the grounds pleaded by the petitioner nor any reason is afforded for rejecting the same. The rejection order thus practical] is silent as to why the petitioner was considered net entitled to the pre mature release. From the written statement it appears that certain jail offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner might have weighed with the Government to come to the conclusion. Those offences are said to have been committed on 24. 2. 1982, 30. 5. 1982, 7.11. 1982 and 20.4.1983 No fault could be pointed out in the conduct of the petitioner in jail thereafter. These jail offences could have possibly weighed against the petitioner when his case for premature released was considered in the year 1983 or in the year 1985. The decision arrived at in March 1988 i.e. after 5 years of the last jail offence, should not have been influenced by those jail offences. They in fact cannot now be considered for coming to the conclusion against the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner in jail having remained clean thereafter, fresh reports could not have gone against the petitioner and if decisions are to be made repeatedly on the basis of the old conduct, there is no fun to reconsider the case of a convict annually with fresh reports. Present rejection of the case of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be treated to be justified.4. For the foregoing reasons, law this petition and direct respondent No. 1, the State of Punjab to release petitioner Gurmeet Singh from jail forthwith.