Om Parkash vs State of Haryana and anr.

S.S. Grewal, J.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Articles 161 and 227 of the Constitution of India, relates to grant of premature release of the petitioner under, the instructions issued by the State of Haryana in the year, 1988.

It is a alleged that, the petitioner is a life convict and has already undergone actual sentence of 91/2 years by now and about 15 years imprisonment including remissions. The petitioner''s premature release case was not considered upon completion of 14 years including remissions. That according to 1988 instructions he is entitled to get his case for grant of premature release considered by the State Govt. It was further pleaded that the Jail Punishment awarded to the petitioner on 27th of September, 1988 was not to be considered by the State Govt. and his case for premature release was to be decided unmindful of the Jail Punishment. It was also pleaded that the petitioner has maintained good conduct in the jail and that he was not convicted for any heinous offence and is stated to have given bone deep injuries only.

This petition has been resisted by the State on the ground that the state level committe after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case deferred his case for one year and the Govt. of Haryana accepted the recommendations of the State level committee.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard. The main grievance of the petitioner is that his case for grant of premature release had to be considered according to 1988 instructions and that because the decision to grant pre mature release to the petitioner has been deferred subsequently his case would be considered according to the new instructions which came into force on 19th of November, 1991, in the State of Haryana. According to the latest instructions, the actual period of detention is 10 years if his case falls (sic) 2(b) before the case of the detenu is to be considered.

The fact remains that the case for grant of premature release to the petitioner was considered both by the State level committee as well as by the State Govt. prior to coming into force of the new instructions. It is true that no reason is given for deferring the case for grant of premature release to the petitioner, but, at the same time the said case has not been rejected, as was the case in Gurbux Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990(2) Recent CR 213 wherein it was observed that once the State Govt. has laid down guidelines, it is incumbent upon the Govt. to give reasons for withholding concession of remission of sentence, because all possibilities of arbitrariness on the part of Government cannot be ruled out. The facts of the authority in Gurbux Singh case (supra) were entirely different and to my mind the principle enunciated in the said authority is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand, it was not obligatory for the State Govt. or for the State level committee to give precise reasons for deferring the case of the petitioner for considering the case for grant of premature relase to the petitioner. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the consideration of the case for grant of premature release to a detenu is deferred, the same would amount to rejection, is hardly tenable. The only right of the detenu under Article 161 of the Constitution of India is to have his case considered for the grant of pre mature release. The mere fact that new instructions would come into force later on would not, be sufficient to hold that the order of the State Government in the present case was arbitrary. It seems that the State Level Committee probably wanted to further watch the conduct of the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, there is no ground for holding that the impugned order passed by the State Government in this case is illegal orarbitrary. However it is directed that both the State Level Committee and the State Govt. would consider the case for grant of premature release to the petitioner after one year or as and when the petitioner becomes eligible for that under the new instructions. With. these observations, the petition stands dismissed.