Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manoj Kumar Alias Sanjay vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 November, 2013
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. W.P. No. 910 of 2013 [ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. W.P. No. 910 of 2013
Date of Decision: Nov. 11,2013
Manoj Kumar alias Sanjay ............................... 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. S.S.Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Gill, AAG, Punjab.
...
RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)
Petitioner Manoj Kumar @ Sanjay was convicted under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of `5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year vide judgment dated 30.9.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar. Criminal Appeal No. 867-DB of 2002 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 1.11.2004.
The petitioner has already undergone more than Kaur Rupinder 2013.11.14 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. W.P. No. 910 of 2013 [ 2 ] 14 years and 6 months of actual imprisonment and with remissions more than 23 years.
On 18.3.2010 the case of the petitioner for pre- mature retirement was initiated and as per the report of the District Probation Officer, Lucknow (Annexure P3) that he is likely to commit the crime if released pre-maturely, the case was rejected on 16.8.2012 by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Punjab, Justice & Home Affairs (Annexure P2).
On notice, reply dated 30.6.2013 has been filed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana, wherein reference has been made to order (Annexure R-1) whereby the District Probation Officer, Lucknow, has not recommended the pre-mature release of the petitioner.
The factual position that the petitioner has undergone 14 years, 11 months and 15 days of actual imprisonment and including remissions he has undergone 22 years, 11 months and 15 days upto 30.6.2013 as per Custody Certificate (Annexure R-II) and his case for initiation of pre-mature release falls under the Government instructions dated 8.7.1991. As per these instructions, the petitioner was required to undergo actual sentence of 12 years for initiation of his case for pre-mature release as his case falls under the category of 'heinous crime'.
The Supreme Court in Bhagwant Saran & others v. State of U.P. and others 1983 (1) C.L.R. 504 had examined a Kaur Rupinder 2013.11.14 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. W.P. No. 910 of 2013 [ 3 ] case where despite recommendation of the Committee, appointed to report on the conduct of prisoners, to pre- maturely release the petitioners, the State Government did not accept the report of the Committee and rejected the case for premature release of the petitioners keeping in view the law and order situation. The ground of rejection was not accepted by the Supreme Court and the petitioners were ordered to be released forthwith. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Mukhtiar Singh v. State of U.P. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5020 of 2005 decided on October 29, 2007) ordered the release of accused on completion of more than 14 years of imprisonment. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jagat Ram v. State of Punjab and others (Crl. Misc. No. M- 6599 of 2011 decided on March 23, 2011) directed the Punjab Government to re-consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court.
In the present case, the petitioner has been in custody for more than 15 years as per the Custody Certificate (Annexure R-II) and his case is covered by the Instructions dated 8.7.1991, the Government of Punjab is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court. It is further directed that if the case of the petitioner for pre-mature release is not decided within a period of two months, he shall be released on parole on his furnishing personal bond Kaur Rupinder 2013.11.14 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. W.P. No. 910 of 2013 [ 4 ] and a surety bond to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Ludhiana. 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, Central Jail, Ludhiana, shall inform the petitioner accordingly.
11.11.2013 ( RITU BAHRI )
Rupi JUDGE
Kaur Rupinder
2013.11.14 10:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh