Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2290 (PNJ)

Nand Lal @ Nanda v. State of Punjab

2018-05-16

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2018
JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral):- The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo sentence for life and to pay Rs.1,000/- as a fine and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months vide order dated 28.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, for having committed offence under Section 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, vide FIR No. 02 dated 03.01.2003 registered at Police Station, Division No. 7, Ludhiana. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner had filed a criminal appeal bearing No. CRA-D-873-DB of 2010 before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.07.2016. 2. There is no dispute that the petitioner has already undergone 15 years, 2 months and 27 days actual sentence and with remissions, 23 years, 2 months and 27 days as on 25.04.2018. It is also not in dispute that the conduct of the petitioner in jail has remained satisfactory and he has never availed any benefit of parole/furlough. 3. The petitioner had filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 337 of 2017 before this Court, for seeking his pre-mature release in terms of the policy of the State of Punjab issued on 08.07.1991 (Annexure P-1), for grant of remissions of sentences of life imprisonment under Sections 432, 433, and 433 (A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 161 of the Constitution of India. The said Criminal Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 18.04.2017 with a direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 therein to consider and decide the legal notice dated 27.02.2017 of the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 4. Thereafter, Secretary, Home Affairs and Jails Department, Government of Punjab has passed the order dated 18.10.2017 in which though it was admitted that the petitioner has suffered more than 14 years of actual sentence and more than 22 years of sentence with remissions but his case was not recommended for the purpose of his pre-mature release on the ground that District Magistrate, Azamgarh (Uttar Pradesh) and Senior Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh, (Uttar Pradesh) have not recommended his case. Accordingly, request of the petitioner was turned down on the ground that Hon’ble the Chief Minister of Punjab, on consideration, has rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of premature release. Accordingly, request of the petitioner was turned down on the ground that Hon’ble the Chief Minister of Punjab, on consideration, has rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of premature release. Aggrieved against the said order, the present petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the policy dated 08.07.1991 as per which the petitioner is required to suffer at least 10 years of actual sentence and at least 14 years of sentence with remissions, whereas the petitioner has admittedly suffered more than 15 years of actual sentence and more than 23 years of sentence with remissions. 6. The only bottleneck for the premature release of the petitioner is the recommendations made by the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh (U.P.), on the basis of which the State of Punjab has passed the order against him. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the said decision has been taken in view of the report dated 18.09.2017 in which he has mentioned that the petitioner may commit the crime again as earlier during his stay in the Village he was in touch with the criminal type of persons although, there is no evidence of crime committed by him. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bhagwat Saran Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; 1983 (1) CLR 504. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that it is the only presumption on the part of the respondents that the petitioner, after having been released from the jail, in view of the policy dated 08.07.1991 (Annexure P-1), would again indulge in criminal activities. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already suffered a lot and had not sought for parole even for once. It is further submitted that it is the respondents themselves, who have stated in their reply that the conduct of the petitioner, inside the jail, has remained satisfactory. 9. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already suffered a lot and had not sought for parole even for once. It is further submitted that it is the respondents themselves, who have stated in their reply that the conduct of the petitioner, inside the jail, has remained satisfactory. 9. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, much less the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered by the policy dated 08.07.1991 and moreover the fact that he has already suffered more than 14 years of actual sentence, though, he was required to suffer 10 years of actual sentence and with remissions, he has already suffered more than 23 years of sentence, which is otherwise required as 14 years, as per the policy dated 08.07.1991 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner deserves the concession of premature release. Therefore, the present petition is hereby allowed and direction is issued to the respondents to pass an effective order for releasing the petitioner from Jail in view of the order passed by this Court.