Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 766
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
Subeg Singh — Appellant
Versus
Union Territory Of Chandigarh And Others — Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 9837 of 2018
Decided on : 18-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Vijay K. Jindal, Adv., Sukant Gupta, Adv., Kirat Singh Sidhu, Adv.
Premature release is not a right and can be denied based on the convict's conduct, potential for future criminal activities, and impact on peace. The State Government has discretion in granting premature release and must consider various parameters before making a decision.
Headnote:
Premature Release - Convict's Case - IPC 120-B, 302, 392, 380 - The judgment discusses the provisions of premature release of convicts under Section 431 of the Punjab Jail Manual, 1996 and the discretion of the State Government in granting premature release. It highlights the factors considered for premature release, including the convict's conduct, likelihood of committing a crime, and impact on peace. The court emphasizes that premature release is not a right and can be denied based on the convict's antecedents and potential for future criminal activities.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks quashing of orders rejecting his premature release. He was convicted for offenses under IPC Sections 120-B, 302, 392, 380 and had appealed against the conviction, which was dismissed. The Chandigarh Administration declined his premature release citing his involvement in jailbreaking and possession of contraband. The petitioner challenged the rejection through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that premature release is not a right and can be denied based on the convict's conduct and potential for future criminal activities. It emphasized the discretion of the State Government in granting premature release and the need for considering various parameters, including the impact on peace. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the rejection of the petitioner's case for premature release was justified based on the apprehension of breach of peace.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's eligibility for premature release, the discretion of the State Government in granting premature release, and the impact of the petitioner's potential release on peace.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that premature release is not a right and can be denied based on the convict's conduct, likelihood of committing a crime, and impact on peace. It highlighted the discretion of the State Government in granting premature release and the need for considering various parameters, including the impact on peace.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that the rejection of the petitioner's case for premature release was justified based on the apprehension of breach of peace. It clarified that the order is not a bar for future consideration of the petitioner's case for premature release.
JUDGMENT :
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 2.7.2015 (Annexure P-8) and order dated 14.9.2016 (Annexure P-10) whereby the case of the petitioner for his premature release has been rejected.
2. The petitioner stands convicted vide judgment dated 18.5.1999 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh for having committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 392 and 380 of IPC whereby he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment as follows :-
| Conviction under section | Sentence Imposed | In default of payment of fine |
| 120- B IPC | R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- | Further R.I. for 6 months. |
| 302 IPC | R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- | Further R.I. for 6 months. |
| 392 IPC | R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- | Further R.I. for 6 months. |
| 380 IPC | R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- | Further R.I. for 6 months. |
3. The appellant preferred an appeal in this Court challenging his conviction by way of filing Criminal Appeal i.e. CRA-D-305-DB of 1999 which stands dismissed vide judgment dated 5.7.1999.
4. The case of the petitioner was considered by Chandigarh Administration for his premature release but was declined vide impugned order dated 2.7.2015 (Annexure P-8). The case of the petitioner was declined while noticing the following facts:
(i) that even while in custody, the petitioner was involved in jail breaking regarding which F.I.R no 17 of 22.01.04 under Sections 121, 121-A,123, 223, 224 and 217 of IPC was lodged;
(ii) that the petitioner was caught with intoxicant powder while surrendering at the jail gate after the parole regarding which F.I.R No.147 of 06.10.2012 under Sections 22, 61, 85 of NDPS Act was lodged.
(iii) that the Inspector General of Prisons (U.T.) had sought report from District Magistrate, Patiala, who submitted report to the effect that petitioner was a habitual criminal and actively involved in terrorist activities during terrorism and if released he may, in association with his old friends indulge in terrorist activities again leading to hampering of peace in the State.
5. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by way of filing a Civil Writ Petition i.e. CWP No.1715 of 2015. However, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the case of the petitioner was again considered for his premature release but was again rejected vide order dated 14.09.2016 (Annexure P-10), while noticing that the petitioner was involved in jailbreak case i.e. FIR No. 17 dated 22.1.2004, the trial of which was still stated to be pending. Another factor that weighed for rejection of his case was that the Inspector General of Prisons, Union Territory, Chandigarh had not recommended his release in view of the report submitted by the District Magistrate, Patiala.
6. Consequently, the petitioner amended his writ petition so as to challenge the aforesaid subsequent order of rejection as well.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner till date has undergone a sentence of more than 28 years which includes remissions to the tune of 71/2 year and in any case has undergone an actual sentence of 20 years and as such he is fully covered by the policy pertaining to premature release of convicts. It has further been submitted that trials in respect of the other two cases in which the petitioner was booked i.e. the jailbreak case (FIR No.17 dated 22.01.2004) and the case pertaining to recovery of contraband (F.I.R No 147 dated 6.10.2012), already stands concluded wherein the petitioner has been acquitted and that there is no other trial pending against the accused.
8. On the other hand, the learned State counsel submitted that a convict cannot claim his premature release as of right and that it is a discretion to be exercised by the gov
