Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dhanna Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 December, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. W.P. No. 1490 of 2012 (O&M) [ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. W.P. No. 1490 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: December 6,2012
Dhanna Singh .......................................... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ................... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri
1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. V.K.Jindal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Anmol Grewal, AAG, Punjab.
...
RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)
This criminal writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuing a writ in the nature of habeas corpus that the petitioner has been illegally deprived of the benefit of premature release under Punjab Government Policy of New Punjab Jail Manual, 1996. The petitioner was involved in a Case FIR No. 18 dated 1.2.1996 under Sections 302, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Sunam District Sangrur. Petitioner along with his co-accused were found guilty under Sections Crl. W.P. No. 1490 of 2012 (O&M) [ 2 ] 302/148/149 IPC and the following sentences were awarded:-
(i)RI for one year under Section 148 IPC.
(ii)RI for life and fine of `5000/- in default further RI for one year under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
Criminal appeals were filed by the petitioner and his co-accused and that were decided by the High Court on 30.7.2008. The conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below was upheld. The petitioner Dhanna Singh as well as his co-accused Nihal Singh and Gurjinder Singh were held guilty and the charges were modified from Sections 302/149 IPC to Sections 302/34 IPC. The other co-accused i.e. Lakhbir Singh, Gurtej Singh, Jora Singh and Inderjit Singh were acquitted by this Court. Copy of the judgment in Criminal Appeals No. 286-DB of 1999, 331-DB of 1999 and 364-DB of 1999 is Annexure P-2. Subsequently, criminal appeals were filed in the Supreme Court which were withdrawn on 6.7.2012 (Annexure P3).
The petitioner has been confined in jail for more than 11 years and has earned remissions as well.
The State of Punjab in exercise of its powers under Article 161 issued a notification adopting the policy dated 8.7.1991 which was inserted in para 431 of the New Punjab Jail Manual, 1996 (Annexure P5). As per this notification, the Crl. W.P. No. 1490 of 2012 (O&M) [ 3 ] petitioner is covered in category 'C' i.e. he is a convict who has been convicted for life imprisonment. He has undergone 10 years of actual imprisonment and with remissions 14 years. His case does not fall in the category prescribed in the notification of heinous crimes. The petitioner was convicted on 30.7.2008. The notification (Annexure P5) would be applicable and the petitioner is entitled that his case be considered for pre-mature release under instructions P-5.
On notice, reply has been filed by Superintendent, District Jail Sangrur dated 1.10.2012 stating that the pre- mature release case of the petitioner Dhanna Singh has already been recommended under instructions dated 8.8.2011 to the Director General of Police (Prisons) Punjab vide letter No. 4748 dated 30.5.2012 and he has further forwarded the premature case to the Government of Punjab on 21.6.2012. The conduct of the petitioner in jail is stated to be good.
Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shri Niwas and others v. Delhi Administration and others AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1391 wherein while considering the cases of prisoners whose pre-mature release has been deferred by the Sentence Revising Board as report of the Probation Officer was awaited, the respondents in that case were directed to Crl. W.P. No. 1490 of 2012 (O&M) [ 4 ] consider and dispose of the cases of pre-mature release within a period of three months. A further direction is given that if, for some reason, they are not disposed of at the expiry of three months, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.
In the present case, the Director General of Police (Prisons) Punjab has already recommended the case to the Government of Punjab on 21.6.2012. It is not disputed that the petitioner's case is covered for pre-mature release and it is not so stated in the reply that any report is still awaited so as to defer the consideration of the case of the petitioner for pre-mature release.
In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shri Niwas's case (supra) this petition is disposed of by giving a direction to respondent No.1 to finally decide the case of the petitioner for pre-mature release within a period of 3 months from today. If case of the petitioner is not decided within 3 months then he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of CJM, Sangrur. The respondents are at liberty to seek cancellation of bail granted after the expiry of 3 months period in case any order adverse to the petitioner will pass.
6.12.2012 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE