Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatinder Kumar @ Bawa vs State Of Punjab And Others on 2 August, 2013
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
CRM No. M-30215 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-30215 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision : 02.08.2013
Jatinder Kumar @ Bawa ....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr S.S. Rana, Advocate and
Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Gill, AAG, Punjab
****
RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is for issuance of directions to the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith prematurely in the light of the Punjab Government instructions/policy dated 08.07.1991 (P-1) and further quashing of order dated 16.08.2012.
The petitioner was arrested in case F.I.R No. 76 dated 26.03.1999 under Sections 364-A/302/201/120-B IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. His appeal has also been dismissed on 07.10.2003 vide CRA No. 500-DB of 2003 by this Court. Arora Gaurav 2013.09.28 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No. M-30215 of 2012 (O&M) -2- The petitioner has already undergone more than 13 years 02 months of actual sentence of imprisonment and more than 21 years with remission.
On notice, a reply has been filed by Supdt. Central Jail, Amritsar. As per custody certificate (R-II), the accused has already undergone 13 years 08 months and 01 days as on 20.12.2012. His case for premature release has been declined on the ground that he has committed a heinous crime.
As per instructions dated 08.07.1991, the premature release case of the convict can be considered if he is convicted for heinous crime and after completing 14 years of actual imprisonment and 20 years with remissions. As per instructions dated 08.07.1991, the following cases cannot be considered for premature release of the convict "5(1) Before completion of a period of 18 to 20 years, below mentioned cases would not be considered for premature release:-
(A) Murdering or killing any elected representative during his/her tenure.
(B) Killing any Government Employee on his duty (C) Murdering/killing any underage girl after committing rape with the girl or murdering someone mercilessly like cutting their body into pieces, dowry deaths etc. Arora Gaurav 2013.09.28 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No. M-30215 of 2012 (O&M) -3- (2) Following cases would not be considered for premature release:-
(A) Criminals who are dangerous for the society cannot be released prematurely.
(B) Criminals who cases come under Section 435 of the Cr.P.C 1973."
it is not a case of the respondents that the petitioner's case falls in any of the above exceptions. As per the instructions dated 08.08.2011, the accused has to complete actual imprisonment of 14 years and 20 years with remissions. In the written statement filed by the respondent, it has been stated that the petitioner has been convicted under Section 302 for life imprisonment for a offence which is heinous in nature. As per instructions dated 08.07.1991 the accused who is convicted for life imprisonment for offence in which death is penalty the crime is not considered to be heinous, then the case of the petitioner should be sent after completion of actual imprisonment of 10 years and with remissions 14 years. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone 13 years 08 months and 01 days as on 20.12.2012.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of State of Haryana vs. Jagdish, 2010(4) SCC 216 has held that for the grant of remissions, the life convict would be governed by the police of Arora Gaurav 2013.09.28 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No. M-30215 of 2012 (O&M) -4- remission of Government prevailing on the date the judgment of conviction and not by the policy which existed on the date of consideration of his for premature release. In paragraph 43 of the judgment, it has been held as under:-
"43. The right of the respondent prisoner, therefore, to get his case considered at par with such of his inmates, who were entitled to the benefit of the said policy, cannot be taken away by the policy dated 13.08.2008. This is evident from a bare perusal of the recitals contained in the policies prior to the year 2008, which are referable to Article 161 of the Constitution. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, was absolutely justified in arriving at the conclusion that the case of the respondent was to be considered on the strength of the policy that was existing on the date of his conviction. State authority is under an obligation to at least exercise its discretion in relation to an honest expectation perceived by the convict, at the time of his conviction that his case for pre-mature release would be considered after serving the sentence, prescribed in the short sentencing policy existing on that date. The State has to exercise its power of remission also keeping in view any such benefit to be construed liberally in favour of a convict which may depend upon case to case and for that purpose, in our opinion, it should relate to a policy which, in the instant case, was in favour of the Arora Gaurav 2013.09.28 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No. M-30215 of 2012 (O&M) -5- respondent. In case a liberal policy prevails on the date of consideration of the case of a "lifer" for pre-mature release, he should be given benefit thereof."
In view of the above, a direction is given to the respondents to consider the case for premature release of the petitioner, within a period of 4 weeks. It is ordered that in case, the case for pre-mature release of the petitioner is not decided by the respondents within a period of 4 weeks, he shall be released on parole on his furnishing personal bond and a surety bond to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Amritsar. The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and will keep peace and shall not indulge in any nefarious activity whilst on parole. After receipt of order from the State Government, Superintendent, District Jail, Amritsar shall inform the petitioner accordingly.
The petition stands allowed in the above terms.
02.08.2013 (RITU BAHRI) G.Arora JUDGE Arora Gaurav 2013.09.28 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document