J.S.SEKHON,J - (1.) THE petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for life in a murder case under orders dated 2.4.1980 of the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepore. The petitioner was below 20 years of age at the time of commission of the offence. It is admitted in the return that the petitioner had undergone more than 10 years 2 months and 15 days of actual imprisonment and had earned remissions of 7 years and 24 days by 19th October, 1989, and that he has enjoyed parole on four occasions and furlough on three occasions. It is not disputed that his conduct in the jail has been good throughout. The mercy petition under Article 161 of the Constitution of India for remission of sentence and premature release was rejected by the State Government vide order dated 8-12-1987 Annexure P-2, with the following observations as contained in para 4 of the order :- "The convict has filed this mercy petition seeking remission of the unexpired portion of sentence under Article 61 of the Constitution of India. All relevant aspects of the matter have been thoroughly analysed, examined and commented upon on the file. The grounds on which he has claimed mercy is that his father is more than 50 years of age doing labour and agricultural work. His income is not sufficient to support the family. It has come on the record that the father of the convict had died more than 7 or 8 years prior to the present occurrence. The convict has another brother who can look after the mother and other members, if any, of the family. It is clear that one of these reasons constitutes a valid ground for exercise of the prerogative of mercy in this case. The mercy petition, in the circumstances, being devoid of any merit, is declined."
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record. No doubt, the compassionate grounds give added support to the case of the prisoner for premature release but all the same since there is no allegation against the petitioner of apprehension of breach of peace, it cannot be said that the relief of premature release could be withheld only on the ground that the other brother of the petitioner was available in the village for looking after his old widowed mother because the primary considerations are the undergoing of requisite period of actual sentence and sentence including remissions as per instructions dated 12-12-1985 of the State Government besides the conduct of the prisoner inside the jail and apprehension of breach of peace in case he is released prematurely. The decision of this Court in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 689, can be safely referred to in this regard. Thus it appears to be a case of that type where the mercy petition has been dismissed by the State Government in an arbitrary manner.
(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, the State Government is directed to release the petitioner prematurely on usual terms and conditions. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, Petition disposed of.;