Tarsem Singh vs State of Punjab and anr.

G. S. Chahal, J.(Oral)

Tarsem Sing petitioner who is at present confined to Borstal Jail, Ludhiana, on being convicted by Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur and sentenced to life imprisonment vide order dated Feb. 28, 1986, has come up in this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ directing his premature release.

The petitioner has pleaded that after his order of conviction, he has undergone 7 years and 3 months actual sentence and also earned remissions exceeding six years. That at the time of his conviction, his age had been found to be 17 years and since he was below 20 years of age, he had been treated as a juvenile offender. The State had issued guidelines Annexures P1 to P3 to deal with the matter of premature release of the convicts. Since the petitioner had become entitled to premature release, he came to this Court in Cr. M. 11280 M of 1990 wherein a direction was given for decision of his mercy petition within four months. That since Cr. M.9689 M of 1991 was filed. In the meantime, fresh instructions had been issued by the State Government. The Court further gave a direction P 1 to P3. The petitioner''s case had, however, been rejected vide order dated Sept. 4, 1992, Annexure P 8. The petitioner challenges the validity of this order on the grounds that under the instructions, he had become eligible for premature release. That there was no cause for the State to hold that there was apprehension of breach of peace especially as the petitioner has peacefully enjoyed furlough and paroles on a member of occasions.

In the return filed, the State has claimed to have decided the case of the petitioner on its merits and rejected the same as the opposite party had apprehension since some court cases relating to lands were still pending. The plea of the petitioner that he had peacefully enjoyed the furlough and paroles was, however, not contested.

Relevant portion of the rejection order reads as follows:

"The District Magistrate has rejected his mercy petition and has written in his report that murder in this case was due to quarrel on land and that case is still pending in the court. The father of the deceased has shown apprehension on the release of the convict. The village panchayat has made it clear that on the release of the convict, there is apprehension to the complainant party. Thus, keeping in view al the circumstances. Convict Tarsem Singh s/o Khajan Singh is not entitled to be released prematurely. Therefore his case is rejected."

The learned counsel urges that there was no material with the authorities to have recorded that there was apprehension to peace on the release of the petitioner and no documents have been placed on record, to support this apprehension. He also challenges this fact on the basis that there was uncontroverted plea made by the petitioner that he had peacefully enjoyed furloughs and paroles.

In Bhagwat Saran and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 1983(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 504, their Lordships of the Supreme Court made the following observations :

"After hearing counsel on either side and considering the affidavit of the respondents filed herein we are satisfied that it is a case where the Committee''s recommendations should have been accepted by the Government. The committee had recommended the release of these prisoners after taking into consideration their behaviour inside the jail as well as other factors. The other only ground given by the State in the counter affidavit is that "after considering their cases sympathetically, keeping in view the law and order situation, they cannot be released. A bald statement like that without any attempt to indicate how law and order is likely to be adversely affected by their release cannot be accepted. In fact, there are no reasons. We direct that the petitioner be released forthwith."

In Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990(1) RCR 689 , it was observed that if the village respectable apprehend danger from a convict, his premature release cannot be refused on that ground. Such a contingency can be met by demanding heavy surety.

I accept the argument of the learned counsel that the authorities were not justified in rejecting the mercy petition of the petitioner on the basis of the police report showing apprehension of breach of peace.

I hereby allow the petition and issue a direction to the respondent to reconsider the mercy petition of the petitioner in the light of the above observations and to decide it expeditiously and preferably within three months from the receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of.