Lilu Ram vs State of Punjab

S.S. Grewal, J.

The petition, as well as Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 1339 of 1989 (Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab), 1340 of 1989 (Harnek Singh v. State of Punjab, 1338 of 1989 (Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab), 1347 of 1989 (Jalandhar Singh v. State of Punjab), 1348 of 1989 (Sher Singh v. State of Punjab), 21 of 1989(Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab), 22 of 1989 (Jagir Singh v. State of Punjab), and 245 of 1989 (Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab), relate to grant of premature release to the detenus named in these petitions. Since common question of law is involved in all these petitions, these shall be disposed of by one judgment.

In brief, the facts relevant for the disposal of these petitions are that the detenus in these petitions were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life after 18th December, 1978, on which date Section 6A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) come into force. The detenus in all these petitions have since undergone more than 81/2 years of actual sentence, or more than 61/2 years of actual sentence in case of detenus, who were below 20 years at the time of commission of offence. Taking into consideration the remissions earned by these detenus, they are said to have undergone sentence exceeding 14 years, and they are legally entitled to be released prematurely by the State Government. Their mercy petitions for grant of premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution of India are already pending with the State Government for the last four months, or even more. The detenus in these petitions have not committed any jail of offence, while undergoing sentence. Arguments were heard.

On behalf of the detenus it was mainly contended that the State may be directed to consider their cases of premature release within the shortest possible time.

In these cases, admittedly, the mercy petitions moved by the detenus for grant of premature release, are pending with the State Government for the last four months, or even more. It is for the State Government to exercise its power under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and to grant whatever relief it deems fit to the detenus. However, the State has to make up its mind and decide the mercy petitions for premature release within a reasonable time. I am supported in my view by the latest Supreme Court authority in Sadhu & others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, Criminal Writ Petition No. 651 of 1986. decided on 20th April, 1987, wherein the State Government was directed to consider application for premature release of the detenu with four months from the date of receipt of such application.

For the foregoing reasons, the State is directed to consider all the aforesaid applications for grant of premature release to the detenus within a period of four months. failing which the detenus shall be at liberty to move this Court for proper relief.