M. Jeyapaul, J. - (1.) THE petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order passed by the State denying the benefit of premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. The fact remains that the petitioner Gurmail Singh was convicted for the offence of murder of his father. The motive being that the father who became the victim for his attack refused to part with the agricultural land which had fallen to his share. The conviction recorded and the life imprisonment awarded by the trial court for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code reached finality.
(2.) THE impugned order passed by the State would read that the petitioner had already completed 10 years and 28 days of actual imprisonment including under trial period and 16 years 5 months and 12 days of imprisonment including remission and excluding parole period. It is an admitted fact that all the authorities chose to recommend premature release of the petitioner. The competent authority made an observation that the petitioner committed murder of his father out of greediness and, therefore, it was heinous in nature. The authority concerned also was of the view that the premature release of the petitioner on the basis of mercy would give a wrong signal to the society and there would be propensity for people to commit such offences.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner launched attack on the order passed by the authority concerned on the ground that irrelevant consideration had weighed in the mind of the authority while considering the premature release sought for by the petitioner.;