Labh Kaur vs State of Punjab and anr.

G. S. Chahal, J.

By means of this petition, Smt. Labh Kaur has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for securing the liberty of her son Kulwant Singh alias Kulwinder Singh (hereinafter called the convict), undergoing life imprisonment under the orders dated 27.10.80, of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, As on the date of this petition, he had undergone actual sentence of 10 years 2 months and earned remissions of 6 years 4 months. In view of the instructions contained in Annexures P1 to P3 the convict moved a petition on 161089 to the State Govt. The respondentauthorities, however, failed to decide the case of the convict and as such, criminal writ petition No. 4049 of 1990 was filed in this Court. In that petition a direction was issued to the State Govt to consider the convict''s case for premature release within three months. No. order has been conveyed and if may be presumed that his mercy petition has not been decided.

in the return filed by the respondentauthorities, the facts about the sentence undergone and remissions earned by the convict are admitted. According to the return the convict did not commit any offence and had been allowed parole on five occasions for a total period of 4 months and 6 days. The mercy petition for his release has since been considered and rejected. A copy thereof is Annexure RI. The relevant portion of Annexure RI is as under :

"3. I have considered the mercy petition on merits. The facts of the case disclose that though Jagat Singh deceased and his brother Nanak Chand had in good path, purchased the land in dispute from Amar Singh father of the convict, his brother and coaccused as also their mother Labh Kaur, refused to recognise the sale because they felt that the consideration money was not adequate and fought relentless battle to take back the said land. There had been revenue and civil case. between the parties. In spite of this, in order to dispossess the complainant party and to take forcible possession of land, in question, the convict, along with his two brothers, Sukhwinder Singh and Mukhwinder Singh as also their mother Labh Kaur took law in their own hands and of iminated (sic) one of the vendees and his son as also the son of the second vendee Nanak Chand. Even the local Panchayat has, gone on record to say that the convict is of aggressive nature who does not hesitate to take law in his own hands. In this background, Kulwant Singh cannot be released merely because he has undergone the requisite period of sentence. Thus, apprehension of breach of peace in case of the release of the convict, as expressed by the local and District level authorities, is wellfounded."

There is no allegation that while on parole, the convict had committed some act which may justify the conclusion that his release was likely to create breach of peace. The law is wellsettled that mere vague allegation of apprehension of breach of peace has no relevance to withhold the concession of premature release of a lifeconvict. Instructions were issued by the StateGovt. as to the conditions on which mercy petitions submitted to the Govt., Punjab are to be examined and clause 6 of the instructions issued on 791979 is to the following effect :

"6. After introduction of section. 433A of the Cr. P.C. w.e.f. 181278, since every premature release case of a life convict will be taken up after he has completed 14 years actual sentence in jail. A minimum period of 516 years for juvenile and women prisoners and 71/2 years and 81/2 years for adult male prisoners can be taken as one of the guidelines for release of every petitioner."

It is not disputed that the prescribed period of sentence has been undergone by the petitioner. He had maintained satisfactory conduct during his stay in jail and did not commit any jail offence. No document has been placed on record to show that an inquiry was held to confirm if there really existed some apprehension of breach of peace. The back ground in which the murder was committed was hardly relevant to reach the conclusion that there were chances of breach of peace.

The law is well settled that vague allegations, regarding apprehension of breach of peace are not relevant for withholding the concession of premature release. In Bhagwat Saran & Ors. V. State of UP & Ors., 1983(1) CLR 304, the only grounds given by the State in the counteraffidavit was that after consideration of the cases of the convicts, sympathetically. keeping in view the law and order situation, they cannot be released. On these facts, their Lordships held that a bald statement, without any attempt to indicate how law and order is likely to be adversely affected by their release cannot be accepted. Their Lordships ordered the release of the petitioners.

A bare reading of clause 6 of the relevant instructions, quoted above, will show that the same is an independent condition and it can be well said that if a convict has undergone more than the requisite sentence and a total of 14 years, including remissions, he is entitled to premature release. Similar view was adopted by N.C. Jain, J. in Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab & anr., 1989(1) Recent C.R. 238 and J.S. Sekhon, J., in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab & anr., 1990(1) Recent C.R. 674. I, thus, conclude that the impugned order dated 6390 Annexure P5, has been passed without properly applying the instructions to the petitioner''s case.

I hereby allow the criminal miscellaneous and issue a direction to the State Govt. to pass order for the release of the convictpetitioner, on such conditions, as it may like to impose with respect to the remaining period of sentence.