Criminal Writ Petition No.158 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No. 158 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 25th, 2011. Lal Singh alias Manjit Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Gujarat and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner, Mr. P.S.Thiara, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Addl. A.G. Punjab, for respondents No. 5 and 6. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Lal Singh – petitioner was convicted by Designated Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in case Nos. 2/93, 7/93 and 2/94, by judgment dated January 8th, 1997 under Section 3 (3) of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of ` 10,000/-. In the year 1998, he was transferred from Gujarat to Punjab by order dated November 11th, 1998 (Annexure P/2) . He is now confined in Maximum Security Jail, Nabha (Patiala)- Punjab. As on date, he has undergone actual sentence of 14 years and about 3 months and more than 21 years including remissions, per custody certificate (Annexure P/11). 2. The case of the petitioner for pre-mature release was not considered by the State of Gujarat. He filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 5059 of 2007 before this Court seeking direction that his case for pre-mature release be considered by the Gujarat Criminal Writ Petition No.158 of 2011 2 .. Government. By order dated August 25th, 2008 (Annexure P/9), this Court directed the Gujarat Government to consider the case of the petitioner for pre-mature release within three months of receipt of the order. 3. Pursuant to the order Annexure P/9, by order dated December 30th, 2010 (Annexure P/12), the Government of Gujarat considered and rejected the case of the petitioner for pre- mature release on the following grounds:- “a). whether offence is an individual act of crime without affecting the society at large : - In this case offences are not an individual acts of crime, but they affect the society at large. b). whether there is any fruitful purpose of confining of this convict any more : Yes. c). whether there is any chance of future reoccurrence of committing crime : - Yes, the Government has received a negative police opinion from the Ahmedabad Police. d). Whether the convict has lost his potential in committing crime. : - No. e). socio-economic condition of the convict's family :- Prisoner is involved in number of serious crimes.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner is confined in Maximum Security Jail, Nabha – Patiala (Punjab) since 1998. During his confinement, his conduct was good and the petitioner has availed parole for 14 times, that is, for a period of 1 year 7 months and 18 days as is evident from Annexure P/11. During the period when he was on parole, there had never been any complaint whatsoever against the petitioner and that is why, it has been reported by the Superintendent of Jail that the conduct of the petitioner remained good. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged that the petitioner is ready to undertake that he shall never visit the State of Gujarat through out his life. As such, Criminal Writ Petition No.158 of 2011 3 .. the petitioner should have been released prematurely by the Government of Gujarat. 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 pre- mature 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 re- examination. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that Shri P.S.Thiara, learned counsel representing the State of Gujarat has stated at bar that the petitioner has already undergone the sentence imposed upon him as per Bombay/Punjab Jail Manual. 8. Above being the legal and factual position, the Criminal Writ Petition No.158 of 2011 4 .. Government of Gujarat is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid judgments of Hon`ble Supreme Court and the fact that he has already undergone actual sentence of 14 years and about 3 months and more than 21 years including remissions and also that he is permanent resident of State of Punjab. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, it is ordered that till the case for pre-mature release of the petitioner is decided by the Government of Gujarat, he shall be released on parole on his furnishing personal bond and a surety bond to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Kapurthala-Punjab because he is permanent resident of Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala. The petitioner shall give undertaking that (i). he will not visit Gujarat; (ii) he will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court; and (iii) will keep peace and shall not indulge in any criminal activity while on parole. 10. After receipt of order from the Gujarat Government, Superintendent, Maximum Jail, Nabha – District Patiala shall inform the petitioner accordingly. 11. Disposed of. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 25.05.2011 som