Mohinder Singh vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.

The petitionerMohinder Singh was arrested on 16.9.1985 with reference to FIR No. 184 dated 6.9.1985 under Sections 302, 149 etc. of IPC of Police Station Sadar, Thanesar. There were five other accused also. After trial, the petitioner and his coaccused were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra on 24.9.1986. The petitioner claims that upto 19.12.1996, he had undergone actual sentence including the undertrial period, for 11 years 3 months and 3 days, and has earned remissions for 5 years and 5 months. Therefore, the petitioner requested that he may be released prematurely. The petitioner also approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to initiate and consider his case for premature release. This Court, in Criminal Misc. No. 5131M of 1996, by its order dated 10.5.1996, directed the concerned authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for premature release. In compliance with the said order, the Government of Haryana passed the order annexure P6 accepting recommendation of the State Level Committee that since the petitionerMohinder Singh had committed two jail offences, one on 29.1.1995 and the other on 12.8.1995, his case for premature release be considered after one year. This order of the Government of Haryana was passed on 13.6.1996.

The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the order dated 13.6.1996 passed by the Government of Haryana and for directing the respondents to release the petitioner prematurely.

A reply has been filed by the Superintendent of Jail, Ambala on behalf of the respondents opposing this application mainly on the ground that the petitioner, who has committed the jail offences, is not entitled to be released prematurely.

I have heard counsel for both the sides.

The statement of the petitioner that he has already undergone actual imprisonment for 11 years 3 months and 3 days and earned remissions of 5 years and 5 months is not disputed by the respondents. The fact that the petitioner is covered by the instructions dated 27.2.1984 is also not disputed by the respondents. (Though annexures P1 to P3 are stated to be annexed with this petition, they are not found on the file). But as pointed out already, the only ground on which the consideration of the petitioner''s request to be released prematurely is sought to be postponed, is that he had committed two jail offences. A reading of the impugned order annexure P6 shows that his request for considering his case for premature release has been ordered to be postponed in view of the two jail offences allegedly committed by him, one on 29.1.1995 and the other on 12.8.1995. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that so far as the alleged jail offence committed by the petitioner on 29.1.1995 is concerned, the petitioner had moved Criminal Misc. No. 8486M of 1995 before this Court and this Court had set aside the order convicting the petitioner for the jail offences allegedly committed by him on 29.1.1995, but directing the Superintendent of Jail to hold a fresh enquiry with regard to the same. This order of the Court has been reported in 1996(3) RCR 616 (Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana). A reading of this order shows that for the alleged jail offence committed on 29.1.1995, the petitioner was punished with deduction of 7 days remissions and forfeiture of all the articles which the petitioner was allegedly in illegal possession of.

So far as the second jail offence allegedly committed by the petitioner on 12.8.1995 is concerned, the petitioner had questioned the same by way of a separate criminal miscellaneous petition (Cr. M. No. 1670M of 1997). That petition on the request of the counsel for the petitioner was taken up today and dismissed as not pressed.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that for the alleged jail offences, he has been punished and he cannot be punished once over again for the same jail offence by postponing the consideration of his request for premature release. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in Subhash v. State of Haryana, 1994(3) RCR 489 , which certainly supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. So I find that with regard to the jail offence committed on 12.8.1995, he has already been punished, and with regard to the jail offence committed on 29.1.1995, he was punished but the said punishment was set aside with a direction to hold fresh enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in spite of the fact that this Court passed the order on 11.9.1996 that a fresh enquiry be held, nothing has been done in this regard. But, I am of the view that even the pendency of an enquiry, if any, in that behalf need not detain the authorities from considering the case of the petitioner for premature release because, as pointed out already, that with regard to the jail offence dated 29.1.1995, the petitioner was punished with deduction of 7 days remissions. Therefore, even if the same punishment is given to him after enquiry, the petitioner''s case will not be affected. Therefore, the impugned order annexure P6 dated 13.6.1996 cannot be sustained. Nothing else has been said against the petitioner to deprive him of the benefit of premature release. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that all the other five coaccused have been prematurely released in 1996 itself, which again is not questioned by the learned counsel for the respondents.

Therefore, the order dated 13.6.1996 annexure P6 is quashed and the respondents are directed to pass an order directing premature release of the petitioner within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petition is ordered accordingly.

A copy of the order be given Dasti.