Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 11 (PNJ)

Rajesh v. State of Haryana

2018-01-08

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

body2018
JUDGMENT Mr. Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.: (Oral) - Prayer in this petition is for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpusfor premature release of the petitioner as per the Haryana GovernmentPolicy (Annexure P-2). 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner wasconvicted in FIR No. 272 dated 21.04.1997, P.S. Sadar Jind, U/s 148, 302,307, 448, 449, 323, 324, 325/149 of IPC and Arms Act and vide order dated13.10.2003, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment andthe appeal filed by him was dismissed. 3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the policydated 12.04.2002, the petitioner is entitled to be prematurely released as hehas completed the requisite sentence as per the policy. 4. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to para 2(b) of thepolicy has submitted that in case of the petitioner needs to be consideredafter completion of actual sentence including the under trial period of suchsentence including remission which is not less than 14 years. Counsel forthe petitioner submits that co-accused of the petitioner namelyHoshiara Singh and Prem Singh have already been prematurely released bythe respondent Authority by considering their case under para 2(b). 5. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in theimpugned order dated 28.02.2014 the only reason given is that the case ofthe petitioner fall under para 2(a) (xii) of the policy dated 12.04.2002 andno explanation has been given as to why his case is not considered underpara 2(b). 6. Reply by way of affidavit of Inspector General of Prisons hasbeen filed in which it is stated that the petitioner cannot claim prematurerelease as a matter of right and it is further stated that case of the petitionerwas considered under para 2(a) (xii) for the reasons that he has committedjail offence on 02.07.2000 by causing injuries to a co-prisoner and an FIRwas registered against him. However, he was acquitted by the AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge, Jind on 01.12.2005. It is further submitted thaton 29.03.2009 the petitioner surrendered one day late after availing theparole and in this regard a warning was issued by the Superintendent ofJail.It is also stated that on 12.02.2010 the petitioner absconded fromfurlough and was later on arrested after 2 years, 1 month and 21 days and inthis regard an FIR No. 90 dated 27.02.2010 under Sections 8/9 of the ParoleAct was registered in Police Station City Jind. The petitioner has alreadyundergone the sentence as per the judgment dated 03.12.2012 passed by theAdditional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind. 7. In view of the above, it is submitted that case of the petitionercould not be considered on parity with the aforesaid two accused namelyHoshiara Singh and Prem Singh. 8. Vide order dated 01.08.2017, the respondent was directed tofile an additional affidavit in this regard and in the additional affidavit it isstated that since the conduct of co-accused Hoshiara Singh son of Dunigarwas found to be satisfactory, his case was considered under para 2(b) of theaforesaid Policy and in view of the aforesaid three instances the case of thepetitioner is to be considered under para 2(a)(xii) as there is a danger topublic safety. 9. In reply, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon ‘BalwantSingh Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (3) RCR (Criminal) 322’, wherein thisCourt has quashed the order passed by the jail authorities decliningpremature release on the ground that he has over-stayed the period offurlough/parole. 10. It is further submitted that since the petitioner was acquitted inthe FIR relating to jail offence and has already undergone the sentence inthe second FIR regarding over-stay in case of furlough, he cannot be heldthat the premature release of the petitioner will amount to danger to publicsafety. 11. Counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the operativepart of the affidavit filed by the Inspector General of Prisons, where thedetails of the parole availed by the petitioner is given. It is submitted thatthe petitioner has availed the parole for a period more than 1 year 3 monthsexcluding the period of furlough as referred above and during this period,there was no complaint from any person regarding any danger to publicsafety when the petitioner was out of judicial custody and he was notinvolved in any FIR. 12. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with adirection to respondent No. 2 to reconsider the case of the petitionerfor premature release in terms of the instructions dated 12.04.2002. Therespondent No. 2 shall pass a fresh order within a period of four weeks fromthe date of receiving the certified copy of this order.