Gurnam Singh vs State of Punjab and anr.

G S. Chahal, J. (Oral)

Gurnam Singh, who is a lifeconvict, has filed this criminal miscellaneous under section 482 Cr.P.C., read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a direction to the respondent, authorities to release him prematurely.

The petitioner claims to have undergone more than 8 years 6 months actual sentence and has also earned remissions exceeding 6 years. Under the instructions, he has become eligible for premature release The petitioner himself is aged 66/67 years and his wife is also aged 62/63 years. He alleges that his father has already died, while his mother is 90 years old. His case for premature release was even commended by the Panchayat Persons, similarly situated, have been released.

In the return filed, the respondent authorities have taken up the plea that on 2091989, the petitioner had got himself released from Open Air Jail, Nabha on the basis, of a fake bail order and was rearrested on 2190. His case for premature release has been rejected. It is, however, admitted that the petitioner has undergone 11 years 2 months and 5 days and earned remissions for 7 years months and 3 days. In the rejection order, the ground for rejection described is recorded as follows :

"....Though in jail, he had not committed any offence but in September, 1989, he along with his four coaccused, obtained bail orders from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda on forged orders of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India and it was only when it came to the notice of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda that the orders were rake that he rearrested the convict and put him back in Jail."

The fact that under the "guidelines" Annexures PI to P3 ground No. 6, the petitioner had become entitled to be considered for premature release, has not been disputed. The only consideration that weighed with respondent authoritics was that he had forged an order of the Supreme Court for bail and enjoyed bail under the same. The respondent authorities have not not placed on record any document which may establish, even prima facie, that the petitioner had participated in the commission of the said forgery. Admittedly, he was in Jail when the alleged documents were forged. Perhaps he could not have known the fact that (he order on the basis of which he was released, which had been obtained by his friends and relatives, was a forged one. In my view, procurement of the forged orders cannot be used against him. The petitioner admittedly had a clean record, otherwise.

I thus, conclude that it is a proper case where the respondent authorities should reconsider his mercy petition in the light of the discussion made above. The mercy petition should be decided expeditiously and preferably within three months. With these directions, this criminal miscellaneous stands disposed of.