Parveen Kumar vs State of Punjab

Ujagar Singh, J.

The petitioner has prayed for premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution of India with the averments that he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide order of conviction and sentence dated 2291981 passed by the learned Sessions Judie, Ferozepur. Appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by this Court. For counting the period of his custody, he states that he was arrested on 221981 and by now he has undergone over eight years and one month actual sentence and has earned remission exceeding six years. Date of birth of the petitioner is 1381961. He was definitely below 20 years of age on 2221981 when the offence was committed. The instructions issued on 791979 by the State Government are Annexure P. 1. These were further supplemented by another set of instructions dated 2631985, Annexure P2. Another set of instructions on the subject were, issued on 12121985 and copy thereof is Annexure P3. A combined reading of all the instructions leads to the conclusion that only those convicts are entitled to be released under the said Article who have completed the minimum period of 81/2 years actual sentence and who had satisfactory conduct in jail and in whose case State Level Committee has recommended their names. The petitioner sent a petition under the aforesaid Article for consideration of his premature release and this petition was received in the Office of the Deputy Secretary Home, Punjab Government on 2131989.

In the written reply, in the form of affidavit of Shri R. M. Bassi, Joint Secretary to Govt. Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, it has been contended that the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/ or in default thereof, to undergo RI for 11/2 years. It is admitted that as on 2751989, the petitioner had undergone actual sentence of 8 years, 2 months and 25 days (by now it would be 8 years, 6 months and 14 days), from the date of his arrest. He has admittedly earned remissions for 6 years 11 months and 16 days. In the written statement, it is specifically admitted that the action for the completion of record, verification of grounds of emergency and comments and recommendations of the local/District level authorities has already been initiated.

In view of the instructions mentioned above and the guidelines for considering the request for premature release of the petitioner, it is almost clear that his case has been initiated for premature release. This has always been when the petitioner''s case is fit for consideration under the aforesaid instructions and guidelines. Mercy petition is already with the Government, as admitted in the reply. The petitioner has already undergone more than 14 years imprisonment and the emergency petition sent by him requires to be considered promptly and cannot be postponed indefinitely on technical grounds.

I, therefore direct that the mercy petition of the petitioner shall be decided within three months from today. In case the same is not decided, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. In case the mercy petition is eventually accepted, the petitioner shall surrender to the bail bonds, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate on receipt of information from the State Government. The petitioner will, however be entitled to challenge the order of rejection of his. mercy petition. This criminal writ petition is thus decided accordingly.