Criminal Misc. No. M-11508 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-11508 of 2010 Date of Decision : 18.04.2011. Parveen Kumar @ Fina @ Gupta ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present:- Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, D.A.G., Punjab, for the respondents – State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Parveen Kumar @ Fina @ Gupta-petitioner was convicted by Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide judgment dated September 8th, 1995, in case bearing First Information Report No.130 dated October 3rd, 1994 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station City, Hoshiarpur and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Subsequently, he was also convicted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”) by Judge, Special Court, Hoshiarpur vide judgment dated July 18th, 2002, in case bearing First Information Report No.9 dated January 10th, 2001, Police Station City Hoshiarpur and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years. 2. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal by order dated May 24th, 2005 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 32132-M of 2004 directed the above said two sentences to run concurrently. 3. Petitioner has already undergone sentence of 21 years 1 month and 20 days as on June 23rd, 2010 as mentioned in the reply of the State dated August 9th, 2010. Meaning thereby as on date, he has completed sentence of about 22 years. Notwithstanding, his case for premature release has been rejected by order dated May 24th, 2010 passed by Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice. For the sake of ready Criminal Misc. No. M-11508 of 2010 2 reference, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under: - “xxx xxx xxx Whereas as per the Government instructions dated 08.07.91 the prisoner is required to suffer a sentence of 10/14 years, which he has completed. Whereas the convict has completed the terms and conditions of fixed conviction for pre-mature release case under Government instructions dated 08.07.91 but the crime committed by the convict is a heinous crime as he had killed his wife by pouring the kerosene oil on her. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur has written in his report about his dangerous character of convict, an anti social element because he was found smuggling in the intoxicated goods.” 4. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has urged that the ground on which his case was rejected is not cogent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that since the petitioner has already completed the sentence, his case should not have been rejected on the ground that he was anti social element and was convicted and sentenced under NDPS Act, particularly, when this Court had ordered that sentences in both the cases shall run concurrently. To support this view, reliance has been placed upon (i). Bhagwant Saran & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. And Ors. 1983 (1) C.L.R. 504 and (ii). Life Convict Laxman Naskar Vs. State of West Bengal 2000(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 18. 5. In Bhagwant Saran's case (supra), the Committee appointed to report on the conduct of prisoners, recommended their release but the State Government did not accept the same and rejected the case for premature release of the petitioners keeping in view the law and order situation. The ground of rejection was not accepted by the Hon`ble Supreme Court and ordered the release of the petitioners forthwith. 6. In Laxman Naskar's case (supra), case for Criminal Misc. No. M-11508 of 2010 3 premature release of the petitioner, undergoing imprisonment for life, who had completed the total sentence of 23 years including remissions, was rejected on the following grounds:- “(i). Two witnesses who had deposed before trial Court and people of locality were apprehensive of acute breach of peace. (ii). Petitioner was person of about 43 years of age and had the potential of committing crime. (iii). Incident in relation to which crime had been committed was the sequel of political feud affecting the society at large.” Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the case of the petitioner could not have been rejected on these grounds and remitted the same to the Government of West Bengal for reexamination. 7. Above being the legal and factual position, the State Government is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein above and concept of law enunciated by Hon`ble Supreme Court and the fact that he had already completed the sentence of about 22 years. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, it is ordered that till the case for premature release of the petitioner is decided by the respondent-State, he shall be released on parole on his furnishing personal bond and a surety bond to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and will keep peace and shall not indulge in any criminal activity while on parole. After receipt of the order from the State Government, Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana shall inform the petitioner accordingly. 9. Disposed of. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 18.04.2011 neetu