Tek Chand vs State of Punjab & anr..

K. S. Bhalla, J.

Again no reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. It appears, respondent No. 1 does not feel interested in filing reply or is not a position to controvert the facts alleged by the petitioner. Petitioner Tek Chand was convicted on 22121983 by Sessions Judge, Ferozepur for murder and allied offences and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He has claimed premature release on the ground of illness/infirmity. For the purpose, he has relied upon government instructions dated 21.8.1986 (annexure P4) wherein in para 2 it was stated that infirm prisoners who were incapacitated by illness provided their release is supported by the recommendations of a committee of three doctors of the District concerned. For release under those instructions only infirmity on the part of the prisoner i.e. incapacitation by illness was required provided the same was supported by a committee of three doctors. Those instructions were further clarified on 2741988 vide annexure P5 through which instructions it was decided that cases of all life convicts covered under para 2(ii) of the instructions dated 2181986 were to be considered on merits irrespective of the date of decision.

It is not disputed that conduct of the petitioner in jail had been satisfactory all along. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 i.e. Civil Surgeon, Ferozepur. It is submitted that petitioner is infirm and respondent No. 1 has not dared to deny that fact. Annexures P6 and P7 are the opinions rendered by a committee of three doctors of the concerned district, Annexure P6 releases to the examinations conducted on 18th and 27th October, 1986 and annexure P7 is based on the examination conducted on 2861998, 171988, and 571988.

The opinion rendered in annexure P6 runs asunder:

"In our opinion the disease may prove fatal to his life due to continuous detention in jail".

The opinion given in Annexure P7 which is based on the data provided therein states as under

"In our opinion, among above mentioned diseases heart disease is of very serious nature which can prove fatal at any time during his stay in the Central Jail.

From what has been said above, it is more than clear that case of the petitioner squarely falls within the scope of para 2 of the instructions dated 2 .8 1986 (annexure P4) and there is no hitch in treating him as infirm prisoner. Despite that, premature release is being denied to him for the last more than 2 years, as is obvious from the fact that he was medically examined for the first time on 18101986 in compliance with the instructions, annexure P4. In the circumstances, keeping in view had health of advanced stage into consideration, I consider it to be a fit case to order premature release and hereby direct respondent No. 1 to release petitioner Tek Chand forthwith.