Suresh Kumar vs State of Haryana and others

V.K. Bali, J. (Oral)

Suresh Kumar through present petition filed by him under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a direction that the petitioner be prematurely released as his further detention is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

It is pleaded in the petition that the petitioner was tried in a case registered vide F.I.R. No. 43 of 11th February 1984 by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted along with his mother. However, his mother in an appeal preferred by her in this Court was acquitted. He was arrested on 13th February, 1984 and was sentenced to life imprisonment on 26th November, 1984. Ever since the day of arrest, he is continuously in Jail except for the period he was released on parole/furlough and by now be has undergone more than 10 years and 8 months of actual sentence. He has also earned remissions exceeding 5 years and, therefore, total sentence undergone by him exceeds 15 years. His case for premature release was considered and rejected vide Annexure R1 on 30.9.1994. In consequence of notice issued by this Court reply has been filed and the prayer contained in the petition as noticed above is opposed on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a heinous crime and his case for premature release can be considered after completion of 14 years of actual sentence including undertrial period. It is also sought to be opposed on the ground that on account of four jail punishments given to the petitioner, he does not deserve premature release.

Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently contends that so far as four jail offences are concerned, the same cannot be taken into consideration for denying the desired relief to the petitioner, as firstly these were no jail offences and if at all some of these were jail offences the petitioner having suffered on that account by imposition of some penalty cannot be made to suffer twice over. For later part of his contention, the learned counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court in Subhash v. State of Haryana, 1994(3) Recent Criminal Reports 489. The facts of the said case reveal that the petitioner life convict committed 19 jail offences and punishments were awarded to him. It was still held that commission of jail offences created no legal ground to deny premature release which became due especially when convict had already been punished for jail offences. This case was decided by V.K. Jhanji, J. relying upon the earlier judgment of this Court in Lila Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988(1) RCR 28.

The objection by the State on the ground of jail sentences cannot be sustained being covered in favour of petitioner by the ratio of judgment in Subhash''s case (supra). Additionally, in so far as two jail offences are concerned these are hardly jail offences; on one occasion the petitioner was found to be in possession of Rs. 510/ which were deposited in the bank and on the second occasion he threw one glass from factory section for which he was given verbal warning. In view of this Court these two do not constitute jail offences. In so far as other two jail offences are concerned, one is with regard to petitioner quarrelling with another prisoner for which he was kept separately for 14 days and the other for having been found sleeping while on duty for which 5 days remission was reduced. Thus for latter two offences, the petitioner had already been punished.

In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the State that the case of the petitioner is covered under para 2(a) of the Haryana Government Instructions (Annexure P5) with regard to policy of premature release of life convicts is concerned, in view of this court the matter does not fall under para 2(a) of the said instructions. In fact it falls in para 2(b) of the said instructions. Para 2(a) of the instructions reads as follows :

Convicts whose death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment and convicts who have been imprisoned for life for having committing a henious crime such as murder with wrongful confinement for extortion/robbery, murder with rape, murder while undergoing life sentence, murder with dacoity, murder under T.D. Act, 1987, murder with Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, murder in connection with dowry, bride burning, murder of a child under the age of 14 years, murder of handicapped or pregnant woman or murder after abduction or kidnapping, murder on professional/hired basis, murder exhibiting brutality such as cutting the body into pieces or burning/dragging the body as evident from judgment of sentence, persistent bad conduct in the prison and those who cannot for some definite reasons be prematurely released without danger to public safety, or convicts who have been imprisoned for life under section 120B of IPC or life convicts who have been awarded life imprisonment a second time under NDPA Act for life convicts who have been imprisoned for life second time under any offence. Their case may be considered after completion of 14 years actual sentence including undertrial period and after earning at least 6 years remissions.

Concededly the case of the petitioner as per the facts given in the F.I.R. is not covered by any of the offences mentioned in para in question. The learned counsel for the State, however, contends that in last portion of the para the case of the petitioner is covered. It is argued that the petitioner is a person of the type who could endanger public safety. There is basic fallacy in the argument. It shall be seen that some definite reasons for denying premature release on the ground that it will endanger public safety have necessarily to be recorded. Nothing at all has been mentioned in the written statement as to how and in what manner the release of the petitioner would endanger public safety.

Consideration of the petitioner for premature release having been found to be faulty, a direction is issued to the respondents to release the petitioner on usual terms and conditions that may be imposed by the government of Haryana.

This petition is allowed in the manner indicated above.