Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 27 April, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Writ Petition No.418 of 2012(O&M)
Date of decision: 27.04.2012
Satnam Singh ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: None for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Gurnihal S. Grewal, AAG, Punjab.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral)
The petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment in Central Jail, Gurdaspur in a case arising out of FIR No.29 dated 24.4.1993 under Sections 302/34 IPC at Police Station Rangar Nagal, Police District Batala District Gurdaspur.
By filing this writ petition, directions are sought to release the petitioner prematurely.
Upon notice, reply has been filed by way of an affidavit of Sh. Shammi Kumar, PPS, Superintendent, Central Jail Gurdaspur wherein it has been submitted as under:
"That the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment in Central Jail Gurdaspur in case FIR No.29 dated 24.4.1993 U/S 302/34 IPC Police Station Rangar Nangal. The petitioner applied for issuing directions to release him prematurely. It is pertinent to mention that the premature release case of the petitioner was initiated by respondent No.2 under Punjab Government Instructions dated 08-07-1991. After police verification report and in accordance with the recommendation of Crl.Writ Petition No.418 of 2012 -2- the District Magistrate Gurdaspur, the Director General of Police (Prisons) vide his Office Letter No.G.I./J- 2/3664 dated 17-05-2011 (copy enclosed as Annexure R-1) recommended the premature release case of the petitioner to the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab Department of Home Affairs Chandigarh and the premature release case of the petitioner are still awaited with the Respondent No.1. In view of above it is requested that the premature release case of the petitioner is still under consideration with the Respondent No.1 and the present petition may kindly be dismissed."
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent Authority to dispose of the case of the premature release of the petitioner within one month from today.
Needless to say that in case the prayer of the petitioner is rejected, he shall be at liberty to seek an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
April 27, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE