Ram Kishan Hooda vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.

Ram Kishan Hooda has filed the present petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C. read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the directions of this Court for the respondents to release him prematurely under the Govt. instructions dated 27.2.1984, Annexure P1, or under the instructions dated 1.2.1998, Annexure P2.

The case set up by the petitioner in brief is that he was tried for an offence u/s 302, etc. IPC, registered vide FIR 525 dated 24.7.1987 in Police Station, Sadar Rohtak. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the court of the Addl. Sessions Judge on 30.7.1988 and since then he is in custody. According to the petitioner as on 25.11.1997, he had spent 10 years 3 months and 20 days in jail by way of actual sentence and besides that earned remissions of 4 years 9 months and 8 days and in this manner, he had served a sentence of 15 years and 28 days. The grouse of the petitioner is that he is not being given the benefit of parole, i.e. 1 year and 3 months and for this reason he is being detained illegally by the respondents.

Notice of this petition was given to the respondents. The stand taken up by them is that the petitioner was convicted on 30.7.1988 and his case is covered u/s 433A, Cr.P.C. according to which the petitioner is supposed to undergo 14 years of actual sentence which the petitioner has not undergone so far. It has further been stated by the respondents that as per Govt. instructions dated 4.2.1993, regarding premature release of life convicts, the petitioner has to complete 14 years of total sentence which he has not undergone so far. The respondents have further stated on merits that as on 14.12.1997, the actual sentence served by the petitioner was 10 years 3 months and 21 days. He has earned remissions of 4 years 4 months and 21 days. He remained on parole for 1 year 3 months and 17 days and, in this manner, the total period of sentence served by the petitioner is 13 years 4 months and 25 days. As he has not served 14 years, therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for premature release.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, the present petition stands disposed of with the directions to the respondents to add the period of parole of 1 year 3 months and 17 days towards the actual sentence served by the petitioner because when the petitioner remained on parole, he was not a free bird as his movements were supposed to be supervised by the State. He was directed to furnish adequate security. In these circumstances, this period of 1 year 3 months and 17 days will go towards the actual sentence but this period can be deducted from the total sentence. The method which has been adopted by the respondentauthorities is not correct as the period of 1 year 3 months and 17 days has been deducted from the period of actual sentence and the remissions. The yardstick/formula applied by the respondentauthorities will not be correct for the reasons stated above.

Resultantly, the present petition stands disposed of with the directions to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for premature release by adopting the yardstick and the observations which have been made above. The State will be at liberty to decide the case of the petitioner for premature release as per instructions dated 4.2.1993, which are the latest instructions of the State Govt. with regard to premature release. The needful shall be done by the respondentauthorities within 1 month from the receipt of the copy of the order.

JUDGMENT accordingly.