Kulwant Singh vs State of Punjab and ors..

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Kulwant Singh petitioner was arrested on the charge of murder on 18th May, 1979 and after trial he was awarded imprisonment for life on 18th December, 1980 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Since then he was confined in jail and he was undergone about ten years'' actual sentence and earned the remissions exceeding six years. During his confinement in jail he maintained satisfactory conduct and never committed any jail offence. He enjoyed parole and furlough on nine occasions without any complaint against his antecedents. His brother Kashmir Singh was also convicted along with him but he was released by the State Government.

The State Government issued instructions under Article 161 of the Constitution for ''premature release of the convicts which were in Annexure P1 to P3 and in view of these guidelines, the petitioner moved a petition for his premature release on 711988 as by that time he had completed more than eight years and six months'' actual sentence and 14 years'' sentence including remissions. His case was rejected by the State Government vide order Annexure P5. That order was assailed by the petitioner by way of Crl. Writ Petition No. 1741 of 1988, which was disposed of on 931989 and the State Government was ordered to consider the premature release case of the petitioner within four months from that date. On 30th March, 1989 in Crl. Misc. No. 81 of 1989 the petitioner was admitted to bail during the period of four months allowed to the State Government for deciding the case of the petitioner.

The State Government again considered premature release case of the petitioner and rejected the same vide order dated 4th July, 1989 copy of which is Annexure P6. His case was rejected mainly on the ground that the relations of the family of the deceased with the petitioner were still strained and there was strong apprehension of breach of peace. The other ground mentioned in the order was that Kashmir Singh, younger, brother or the petitioner had already been released and he was in a position to look after the family affairs. This order was assailed in another CA. Writ Petition which came up for hearing on 6121989. This Court quashed the order dated 471989 and directed the State to reconsider the case again within four months. The petitioner was allowed to remain on bail. Copy of the order is Annexure P8. Accordingly, the State Government again reconsidered the case of the petitioner and rejected it vide order dated 291990 Annexure P9. This was passed an similar grounds as the order Annexure P6. The State Government did not care for the orders passed by this Court carlier in two writ petitions and the order Annexure P9 was passed without applying mind. The petitioner on these averments has thus filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution'' of India for his premature release.

In the return filed by the State, it was stated that the petitioner remained on bail from 2581988 to 1011989 and he was still on bail since 1051984 but he had undergone actual sentence for 9 years 7 months 2 days and he had been allowed remission for 6 years 7 months 6 days. He remained on parole for 7 months 14 days and on furlough for 2 months 17 days. This fact was admitted that in jail the petitioner maintained satisfactory conduct. It was further contended that while rejecting the case of the petitioner for premature lease, the ground of compassionate was duly considered. The younger brother of the petitioner had already been released from detention and he was able to look after the familyaffairs.

This fact is not disputed that under the instructions issued by the State Government on 12121985, premature release case of a convict could be considered after he completed 81/2 years'' actual sentence in jail and 4 years'' sentence with remissions. In the instant case, the petitioner had undergone more than, 91/2 years'' actual sentence and more than 14 years'' sentence with remissions. The fact is not denied that during his detention in jail he maintained a satisfactory conduct and was never awarded jail punishment. He also remained on parole and furlough but never gave any occasion for complaint. Vide order dated 2.8.1990, the premature release case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that since his release on bail the petitioner had not maintained satisfactory conduct and security proceedings were initiated against him on 2571989 on the basis of an application given by the complainant party. Earlier security proceedings were initiated against his brother Kashmir Singh and some others. I find that this is not a valid around for rejection of the case of the petitioner. The impugned order Annexure P9 was passed in August 1990 while the security proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 2571989. No mention has been made as to what became of those proceedings. The petitioner wag surely not found guilty as in that case there must have been some order asking him to furnish surety bonds for keeping peace. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in fact the relations between the complainant party and the petitioner are no longer strained and the complainant party had moved an application to that effect before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nawan Shahar (Annexure P11). Even otherwise I find that the ground on which the case of the petitioner was rejected is not tenable. In no case the opposite faction would like the premature release of a prisoner and the fact that the security proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of some complaint by the opposite party can by no stretch of imagination would endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order. Moreover, at the time of premature release, of the prisoner requisite surety bonds are taken for keeping peace and be of good behaviour and such like contingencies can easily be covered by the concerned authorities by getting the surety bond in heavy amount Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990(3) RCR 24 is an authority on this point. The fact that brother of the petitioner, namely, Kashmir Singh was ''given benefit of the instructions issued by the State regarding premature releases is also no ground to debar the petitioner from claiming, that relief. Rather the case of the coaccused should have been dealt with on the same basis and there should not have been any discrimination.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the State Government is directed to order premature release of the petitioner forthwith on usual terms and conditions.