V.K.JHANJI, J. - (1.) THE present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who is a life convict and presently undergoing imprisonment for life in District Jail, Bhiwani.
(2.) PETITIONER was tried for the offence of murder by Addl. Sessions Judge, Narnaul, and he was found guilty of offence under section 302 IPC and thus, ordered to undergo imprisonment for life. According to the petitioner, till date, he has under gone 12 years 11 months' actual sentence and little more than 19 years sentence including remissions. In this petition, petitioner has stated that while undergoing the sentence, he was never found guilty of any jail offence and he has earned remissions because of his continuous good conduct. He has enjoyed parole/furlough on a number of occasions without any sort of complaint of whatsoever nature against his antecedents/conduct. Petitioner applied to the State Government for premature release on the basis of instructions dated 19.11.1991, copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. As per the said instructions, the convicts who committed heinous crimes, are required to undergo 14 years' actual imprisonment and 20 years' imprisonment including remissions. The convicts, who were found guilty of ordinary offences, are required to undergo 10 years actual sentence and 14 years sentence including remissions. The other conditions for grant of premature release is good conduct of the convicts while undergoing sentence. The Superintendent of the Jail is required to submit premature release case of the life convict, two months before he completes requisite sentence as mentioned in the instructions. Thereafter the case is considered by the State Level Committee and then the recommendations of the State Level Committee are sent to the Chief Minister through Minister for Jails. The cases are ultimately required to be put up before the Governor of the State. The State Government, on receipt of request made on behalf of the petitioner, considered his case, but the same was rejected on the ground that petitioner has committed a heinous crime. Petitioner impugned this order by way of Cr. Misc No. 14455-M of 1933, and during the pendency of said petition, the State Government passed the release orders in the case of petitioner's co-accused, Hardutt. This Court on 15.7.1991, disposed of aforesaid Crl. Misc No 14455-M of 1993, directing the Authorities concerned to consider the case of the petitioner within fifteen days from the date of passing of the order. It was also ordered that the Authorities shall give reasons, if they have to distinguish the case of the petitioner with that of his co-accused. At this stage, it may also be noticed that earlier to this, the State Government had considered the case of the petitioner as is clear from order dated 27.1.1992 of the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Jails Department which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-6, which for the facility of reference is reproduced hereunder : ORDER "In compliance with Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court order dated 31.10.1991. passed in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 9293-M of 1991, the case of premature release of fife convict No 3503/C Dharma s/o Jhabar was put up before the State Level Committee set up by the Govt. for consideration of premature release cases of life convicts. The Committee after considering all the aspects of the matter including the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, observed as under : The State Level Committee after due consideration has recommended that the premature release case of this life convict is covered under para 2(b) of the Government instructions issued vide memo No. 3/135/91-1-JJ(II) dated 19.11.1991, his premature release case may be reconsidered after he has completed 10 years of actual sentence including under-trial period and 14 years sentence including remission." The Government has accepted the recommendations of the committee. Sd/-Trilochan Singh, Financial Commissioner and Secy. to Govt. Haryana, Jails Deptt. 27th Jan, 1992." From the order quoted above, it is abundantly clear that the State Government examined the case of the petitioner in the light of instructions dated 19.11.1991 and found that the case of the petitioner was covered under para 2(b) of the said 1991 instructions, meaning thereby that case of the petitioner for premature release was to be considered after he has undergone 19 years' actual sentence including under-trial period and 14 years' sentence including remissions, which admittedly, tin date, the petitioner has under- gone. The case of the petitioner has now been rejected on the ground that as revealed from judgment of conviction, petitioner had fired at the deceased from a close range, whereas all other accused including Hardutt, had pounced upon the deceased and had stabbed on various parts of his person. In my view, distinction as brought out by the respondent is not justifiable. Petitioner and his co-accused were sentenced for the murder of Sultan and ordered to undergo imprisonment for life. Moreover, vide order dated 27.1.1992, the State Level Committee after due consideration had found that case of the petitioner is covered under para 2(b) of 1991 instructions. Having found this, now it does not lie with the State Government to say that petitioner's case for premature release would be considered after he undergoes 14 years' actual sentence as provided in para 2(a) of the said instructions, i.e. heinous crimes. Respondent was, thus, not justified in rejecting the case of the petitioner. The co-accused of the petitioner has been released by the Government in exercise of powers conferred by Article 161 of the Constitution of India, which fact is not being denied by the respondent. Therefore, the order rejecting the case of the petitioner being bad, cannot be sustained. It would be futile to give a direction to the State to reconsider the case of the petitioner for premature release because that exercise has already been done twice by this court.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , this petition is allowed, and respondents are directed to release the petitioner prematurely on usual terms and conditions. Petition dismissed.;