- (1.) Heard. The respondents have failed to file return despite granting of adequate opportunity. Under these circumstances, there is no option but to dispose of this writ petition by taking the facts averred therein on their fact value.
(2.) The petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for life under the orders dated 12th June, 1975 of the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. He has suffered more than 8-1/2 years of actual sentence including the period of detention during trial and more than 14 years in all including remissions. He has further averred that his conduct in jail has been good throughout and he is on bail since 1983 under the orders dated 16th March, 1983 of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 75 of 1983 directing the respondent-State to consider the premature release case of the petitioner within two months failing which the petitioner was directed to be released on bail. The State Government vide order dated 8th September, 1989 (Annexure P-2) has rejected the premature release of the petitioner by holding as under :- "The jail record of the conviction Balbir Singh has been carefully examined. The police authorities and jail authorities have not recommended his release. The District authorities have opposed his release on the ground that he believed in groupism. There are grounds to warrant his premature release. Government after consideration of the relevant material, is satisfied that it is not a fit case where remission should be granted. It has, therefore, been decided to reject his case for the present."
(3.) A bare glance through the above referred operative part of the order rejecting the premature release of the petitioner leaves no doubt that the concerned authority had withheld the premature release of the petitioner on vague grounds. It is not even disclosed in this order as to why the jail authorities and the police and District Magistrate had not recommended the case of the petitioner for premature release except that the petitioner believes in groupism. There is no indication available for this order as to what type of groupism the petitioner used to indulge or the precise circumstances, which led the authorities to believe that the petitioner believes in groupism.;