Sultan Singh vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.

Sarvshri Sultan Singh, Raghbir Singh and Ram Avtar have filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, read with section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that they are entitled to the remissions granted by the Haryana Government during the period they remained on bail, in terms of the various circulars issued by the Government.

The petitioners along with their coaccused were tried in a cases registered under sections 302, 326, 324 323 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code, by the Sessions Judge, Narnaul. The trial Court held the petitioners were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code; imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 150/ under section 325/34, IPC; and to undergo imprisonment under for three months and a fine of Rs. 100/ under section 323/34 IPC. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

The petitioners filed an appeal in the High Court, which was finally heard and decided on 31st August, 1989. The Division Bench of this Court set aside the conviction under section 302/34, Indian Penal Code. However the conviction under Section 325/34, Indian Penal Code, was maintained. Against the judgment of the Division Bench, the petitioners as well as the State filed an appeal in the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Both the appeals were disposed of together by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the petitioners were found guilty under section 304, PartI read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, and were awarded sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/ vide judgment Annexure P/3.

The case of the petitioners is that while they were in jail, they filed an application for the grant of bail. On 21st December, 1989 they were allowed to be released on bail vide order Annexure P4. They surrendered in jail in pursuance of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 25th/26th May, 1996 immediately on receipt of the information. All the petitioners have been continuously in the custody since 11th January, 1987 upto 21st December, 1969, (1989 ?) and from 21st December, 1989 till 24th/25th May, 1996 they were on bail. During this period, the State of Haryana issued various circulars for the grant of remissions to all those convicts who were on bail during this period. But the benefit of remission granted by the Haryana Government in those circulars has not been granted to the petitioners. On 14th August, 1989, the Government of Haryana granted remissions to all those prisoners who happened to be convicted in jail on 15th August, 1989. The convicts who were on parole/furlough from the jail in the State of Haryana on 15th August, 1989, were also given the benefit of the remission subject to the condition that they should surrender before the jail authorities. The case of the petitioners is that they are also entitled to the grant of remissions mentioned in the circular dated 14th August, 1996. Similarly, other circular Annexure P/7, P/8 and P/9 were issued on 15th August, 1991, 26th January, 1992 and 29th April, 1994, respectively. Yet another circular was issued on 14th August, 1995 by the State of Haryana stating that the convicts who have been sentenced and have been undergoing various terms of imprisonment and confined in jail in the State of Haryana on 15th August, 1995 were entitled to the remissions. Copy of the said circular is annexure P/10. In short the case of petitioner is that though they were on bail still they are entitled to the benefit of remissions on account of the circulars which were issued by the State of Haryana from time to time. It may be mentioned at this stage that Sultan Singh, petitioner No. 1, is serving the sentence in District Jail, Bhiwani; Raghbir Singh, petitioner No. 2 is serving the sentence in District Jail, Mohindergarh and Ram Avtar, petitioner No. 3, is serving the sentence in District Jail, Rewari.

Notice of the petition was given to the respondents and three sets of the written statements have been filed. In two written statements the stand taken by the respondents is that petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to the benefit of remissions for the period when they were on bail, while the stand of the Superintendent Jail, Bhiwam visavis Sultan Singh, petitioner No. 1 is that he is not entitled to the benefit of remissions.

I have heard Shri V.K. Jindal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Shri Azad Singh, Astt. Advocate General, Haryana, appearing on behalf of the responders.

At the very outset this court would like to mention that there could not be inconsistent stands from the side of the respondents as the State is on legal unit and legal entity. Be that as it may, now I would like to discuss the legal proposition which has emerged out from the controversy in the present petition.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has placed reliance on Jai Parkash v. State of Haryana, 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 377 and his primary contention is that a prisoner is not eligible for remission of sentence during the period remained on bail or when his sentence was suspended. Learned counsel for the petitioners Shri V.K. Jindal has successfully distinguished this authority with the plea that in the cited case, the convict did not surrender before the Jail Authorities, as per the spirit and desire of the circular. Since the convict had violated the terms of the circular, therefore, keeping in view the facts of that case, the Hon''ble Supreme Court declined to extend the benefit of the remissions to the convict in the cited case. Mr. Jindal, on the contrary, has invited my attention to the judgment of this court dated 18th September 1996 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 21119 of 1995 Kishan Singh v. State of Punjab and others, in which a similar proposition was discussed. His Lordship relied upon the authority of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported as Nalamolu Appla Swamy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1990 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 44; a Full Bench authority of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported as Indian Association of Lawyers v. Principal Secretary, Home Deptt., Government of A.P., 1994(3) Recent Criminal Reports 379; and a single bench judgment of this court reported as Man Mohan Sahani v. State of Haryana, 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 292. His Lordship was pleased to hold that the interpretation put forth by the Government was not correct. After relying upon the observation of the Hon''ble Supreme Court which runs as follows :

"We find merit in contention because the scheme of remission formulated under the GO is with reference to the period of sentence actually undergone by different classes of prisoners and in the case of some, the period of actual sentence together with the remissions earned for reckoning the total sentence. The GO does not stipulate that in order to get the benefit of remission, the prisoners must actually be in jail on the date the GO was issued."

the Hon''ble Judge allowed the petition of Kishan Singh. The ratio propounded by the Hon''ble Supreme Court is fully applicable to the facts of the case in hand. Possibly there cannot be any distinction when the convict is on bail/furlough or parole or when he was serving the sentence.

Resultantly, the present petition of all the three petitioners is hereby allowed and directions are given afresh to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners entitling them to get the benefit of various remissions, which were granted by the State of Haryana when the petitioners were on bail, in terms of various circulars issued from time to time. The necessary and requisite orders may be passed by the Government within three months from the receipt of the copy of this order.