Jarnail Singh vs State of Punjab

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.

Through this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, Jarnail Singh, detenu has sought his premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution of India contending that he had already undergone 9 years, 3 months 24 days of actual imprisonment and more than 14 years in all including remissions. He maintains that as per the relevant instructions issued by the State Government from time to time, the petitioner, is entitled to be released prematurely as he had a already undergone 81/2 years of actual imprisonment besides having under gone more than 14 years of imprisonment including remissions. He further maintains that the mercy petition of the detenu was wrongly rejected by the concerned authorities on the ground that the opposite faction in the village apprehended breach of peace at the hands of the prisoner. The order of rejection of mercy petition annexure P6 is also. appended to the writ petition.

I have perused the return filed on behalf of the State of Punjab. it is admitted that the detenu had undergone more than 9 years 3 months and 24 days upto 31st December, 1989 and that he had suffered more than 14 years sentence including remissions. It is not disputed that the conduct of the petitioner during his confinement in the jail was good but it is reiterated that the mercy petition was rightly dismissed by the State on the ground that there was apprehension of breach of peace if the petitioner is released prematurely.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The opposite faction would never relish the premature release of the prisoner and by no stretch of imagination such apprehension would amount to endangering the security of the State or maintenance of the public order. On the other hand, at the time of premature release of prisoner requisite surety bonds are taken for keeping peace and be of good behaviour and such like contingency can be easily covered by the concerned authority by getting surety bonds in the heavy amount.

The observation of the Supreme Court in Bhagwat Saran & ors. v. State of U.P. & others 1983(1) CLR 504, can be well referred on the point that premature release of a prisoner cannot be withheld on vague allegation regarding apprehension of breach of peace. In that case the apex Court observed as under :

"After hearing counsel on either side and considering the affidavit of the respondents filed herein we are satisfied that it is a case where the Committee''s recommendations should have been accepted by the Government. The Committee had recommended the release of these prisoners after taking into consideration the behaviour inside the jail as well as other factors. The only ground given by the State in the counter affidavit is that "after considering their cases sympathetically, keeping in view of the Law and JUDGMENT situation they cannot be released." A bald statement like that without any attempt to indicate how law and order is likely to be adversely affected by their release cannot be accepted. In fact there are no reasons why recommendations could not be accepted. We direct that the petitioner be released forthwith."

For the foregoing reasons, there is no option but to direct the respondent authorities to release the detenu prematurely forthwith on requisite terms and conditions by accepting this writ petition. I order accordingly.