Megh Singh vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.

By this order I dispose of two Crl. Misc Nos. 16669M of 1997 (Megh Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr.) and 26944M of 1997 (Baldev Singh v. State of haryana and Anr.) as prayer made by both the petitioners is common for their premature release in view of the instructions dated 4th February, 1993.

The case set up by the petitioners is that they are physically handicapped and the said handicap has been developed after the sentence and thus they are entitled to be released prematurely after serving six years of detention because the alleged problem of handicap is of such a nature as to render the petitioners totally incapacitated of committing any offence and they are incapable to look after themselves in the prison. The plea of the petitioners has been declined on the ground that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case under subpara (e) on the instructions dated 4th February, 1993.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits and draws the attention of this Court to Annexure P1 in the writ petition of Megh Singh and also to the document Annexure P1 in the writ petition filed by Baldev Singh and it has been submitted that in the light of these two documents subpara (e) of the said instruction is fully applicable and there was no justification on the part of the authorities to reject the case of the petitioners for grant of premature release.

On the contrary, the counsel appearing on behalf of the State has argued that the case of the petitioners has been rightly rejected.

I do not see any merit in the submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The relevant instructions are as follows :

Physically handicapped

If the handicap existed before the crime, no special consideration will be given. In case a handicap develops after the sentence, the release may be considered after the convict has undergone detention of 6 years provided the handicap is of such a nature as to render him totally incapable of committing any offence and further renders him incapable of looking after himself in the prison.

The object of these instructions is that the prisoner, if released prematurely, should not be in a position to commit the offence again and his further detention has become a liability in the jail. Compassions have been shown by the State by taking into consideration the above object.

Now it is to be seen what has been prima facie proved by the petitioner. Firstly I take the case of Megh Singh petitioner, who relies upon Annexure P1, which is a certificate dated 13th February, 1995 issued by the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Jakhal, wherein it has been stated that this petitioner is suffering from Hypertension c vertigo c A.N. c. G. Weakness vide OPD No. 305 dated 7th February, 1995. It has been certified by the doctor that the patient has been under his treatment since 7th February, 1995. A reading of the said certificate would show that it has not been certified by the doctor that the petitioner has become incapacitated or he is suffering from such deficiency in his body so as to make him incapable and that he is not in a position to do any work in the event of his release from the jail. The certificate is far below the level and the parameters prescribed by the State.

Now I switch over to the certificate which has been placed on the record by Shri Baldev Singh petitioner. This man is of 70 years of age with a moderate health. It has been stated in the certificate (Annexure P1) that he is suffering from hypertension and I.H.D. vide OPD slip of General Hospital, Hisar dated 21st May, 1993 and since then he is getting regular treatment at Central Jail, Hisar. It has also been certified by the Medical Officer, who issued this certificate on 20th November, 1996, that Shri Baldev Singh develops chest pain off and on, for which he is given to treatment. For such type of disease, he is required long continuous treatment, salt free diet to avoid any kind of physical and mental tension. Thus the observations of the doctor vide this certificate also are far below the parameters prescribed by the instructions issued by the State Government for giving benefit to a convict.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are old persons aged about 70 years and thus they are incapable of committing any crime. On the contrary Shri J.S. Ahlawat, A.A.G., Haryana, relies on Annexure R1 wherein the opinion is given by the medical board constituted by the State in order to examine Shri Baldev Singh petitioner. The observations given by the Medical Board also do not help the case of petitioner Baldev Singh.

In these circumstances the prayer made by both the petitioners cannot be allowed and no directions can be issued to the State. Both the petitions are totally devoid of any merit and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs.

Petitions dismissed.