MALIK SHARIEF-UD-DIN, J.

( 1 ) BY this order we arc disposing of two criminal writ petition Nos. 144 of 1985 (Rakesh Kaushik V. Delhi Admn. and another) and 130 of 1985 (Bhagirath V. Delhi Admn. and another) since common question of law arises and the facts arc similar in these petitions.

( 2 ) THE petitioners have approached this court for issuance of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 3rd June, 1985 passed by the Sentence Revising Board of Delhi Administration rejecting the application under section 432 Criminal Procedure Code. filed by the petitioners for premature release and directing the respondents to release the petitioners from prison.

( 3 ) IN Crl. Writ No. 144/85 filed by Rakesh Kaushik it is stated that on the date of filing of this petition he had already undergone imprisonment for 16 years, one month and twenty five days and was on parole on four occasions for a total period of 70 days. In Cri. Writ Petition No. 130 (85 Bhagirath petitioner alleges that he has suffered a sentence of nearly 17 years and his release from the Jail is overdue. It is contended by both the petitioners that their continued detention in Jail violates the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 14 and Article 19 (1) (d) and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as Para 516-B of the Jail Manual and the provisions of section 432 Criminal Procedure Code.

( 4 ) THE petitioners together with other accused persons were convicted and sentenced by the court of Shri K. S. Sidhu, Addl. Sessions Judge Delhi vide his judgment dated 26th July, 1975 and were awarded life imprisonment under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code in case FIR No. 957 Police Station Defence Colony, New Delhi. The petitioners with other acdused including one Dr. N. S. Jain were involved in a case of murder which is now commonly known as Vidhya Jain Murder case.

( 5 ) IT is not necessary for us to state all the facts mentioned by the petitioners in the petitions. Suffice is to say that the petitioners have been informed that their case for premature release was also considered with the case of other accused including Dr. N. S. Jain and was rejected by the Sentence Revising Board on 3-6-1985. The petitioners state that their case is not worse than the case of Dr. N. S. Jain who on filing a writ petition in this court was ordered to be released by the court on 22-7-1985. It has further been urged that despite favourable reports by the Jail Superintendent and the Probation Officer in the case of Rakesh Kaushik and despite favourable reports by all concerned in the case of Bhagirath the Sentence Revising Board has arbitrarily and without application of mind rejected their application, under section 432 Criminal Procedure Code. for premature release.

( 6 ) IN Crl. Writ Petition No. 144/85 filed by Rakesh Kaushik, a rule was issued on 12-8-1985 and connected writ petition No. 130/85 was directed. by an. order dated 23rd August, 1985 to be heard along with the petition of Rakesh Kaushik. In both the petitions a return was filed by Shri A. S. Khullar, Deputy Secretary (Home ). Delhi Administration thereinafter giving a brief -history of the case in which the petitioners were convicted nd sentenced, it is said that the cases of the petitioners were placed before the Sentence Revising Board on 3-6-1985 and the Board after considering the nature and gravity of the offence and other relevant considerations has not recommended for premature release of the petitioners and has submitted the minutes to the Lt. Governor Delhi which were duly approved and the decisionn was communicated to the petitioners. Aloag with the affidavit an extract of the minutes of the meeting of the Sentence Revising Board held on 3-6-1985 was also filed as Annexure a .

( 7 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Teja Singh Sodhi for the respondents. We may point out that the Sentence Revising Board did not consider the case of the petitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document