The court emphasized that the reasons for rejecting pre-mature release must be legal and fair, and a petitioner should not be punished indefinitely for a past jail offence.

Harbans Singh Rai, J. - Petitioner Lila Singh is undergoing imprisonment for life in Central Jail Patiala. He was less than 20 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime and there is no dispute that he has already undergone 11 years and one month of actual sentence and was granted 6 years and 4 months as remission. It is also not disputed that he fulfilled the conditions envisaged in paragraph 516(8) of the Punjab Jail Manual for his case for pre-mature release to be considered by the State Government.

2. Lila Singhs case for pre-mature release was considered in 1980 and was rejected in 1981. It was again referred to the Government and was again rejected in March, 1983. In the year 1986, again the State Government considered the case of the petitioner and rejected the same.

3. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order of the State Government rejecting his case for pre-mature case and he has sought direction against the respondents to reconsider his case in accordance with law.

4. In the return filed by the respondents, it is stated that the premature release case of the petitioner was rejected by the Government after considering the relevant records and report of the district authorities. It is further stated in the reply that the petitioner had committed a jail offence in November 1983 and his pre-mature release is likely to prove hazardous to peace and tranquility in the locality and it would not be in public interest to release such a person pre maturely.

5. The contention of the respondents that the pre-mature release of the petitioner is likely to prove hazardous to peace and tranquility in the locality without mentioning any material on which this conclusion was arrived at, is not a ground to reject the pre mature release case of the petitioner. A bald statement like that without any attempt to indicate as to how law and order is likely to be adversely affected by his release, cannot he accepted.

6. The other ground mentioned in the order of the Government declining to release the petitioner is that he had committed a jail offence in November, 1983. It is not disputed that the sentence awarded as a consequence of that jail offence has already been undergone by the petitioner. It is not fair to punish the petitioner for all times to come by declining his pre-mature release on account of jail offence which he committed in 1983.

7. The reasoning given in the order declining the pre-mature release of the petitioner, to the effect that he had committed a jail offence and his release will prove hazardous to peace and tranquility in the locality are no legal reasons to decline the pre-mature release. He has already undergone the imprisonment awarded to him for committing the jail offence and there is no material to hold that his release is likely to prove hazardous to peace and tranquility in the locality.

8. In the circumstances referred above, the respondents are directed to reconsider the pre-mature release case of the petitioner within four months from today without taking the jail offence which was committed in November 1983, into consideration. The case of the petitioner for pre-mature release will be decided independently of any jail offence which he committed in 1983. In case the petitioners case of pre-mature release is not considered within four months from today, he will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur.