Punjab and Haryana HC sets aside UT order, grants premature release of murder case convict

The petitioner, Rajinder Singh, was arrested in March 1997, for the murder of a policeman and an FIR was registered at Police Station 3, Chandigarh. He was sentenced on December 14, 2000, to undergo life imprisonment. He filed an appeal to the HC against the trial court order but it was dismissed.

The petitioner’s counsel argued before the HC that the premature release case of the petitioner is totally covered as per the policy dated July 8, 1991. He has further contended that as per the said policy, the petitioner had to undergo a maximum of 10 years of actual sentence and 14 years of a total sentence with remissions, whereas the petitioner has already undergone more than 18 years of actual sentence and over 22 years of total sentence including remissions. Thus, further detention of the petitioner is illegal and against the policy and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The counsel also stated that the petitioner had displayed good behaviour in jail.

Opposing the petitioner’s plea, the State Counsel contended that the petitioner, who had been serving as the Head Constable at the time of the murder, had killed Sub-Inspector (SI) Singh Ram by shooting him. He has further submitted that the premature release case of the petitioner was rightly rejected by Chandigarh Administration while keeping in view the facts and circumstances as well as the opinion of the learned trial Court.

Justice Sant Parkash hearing the matter held said, “The policy has been framed for the benefit of the convicts and for the welfare of the prisoners. Further, as per Clause (II) of the said policy, the overall conduct of the life convict during his confinement in jail with specific emphasis on his/her conduct for the last five years from the date of his/her eligibility for consideration of pre-mature release is to be seen and the convict has not punished for any jail offence during the last five years.”

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered as per the said policy dated July 8, 1991. The purpose of framing the policy is for the welfare and benefits of the convicts. Since the petitioner has already undergone more than the requisite sentence as per the said policy, the present writ petition is allowed”, ordered Justice Sant Parkash.