Parkash Singh vs State of Punjab

B.S. Nehra, J.

The petitioner was arrested on 10101981 and was sentenced to life imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, on 1561982. On 24.5.1990 he made a mercy petition copy Annexure P 4, to the Government for his premature release, which was rejected by the Government. Eventually his prayer for premature release was reconsidered by the Government vide order dated 1211991 but the prayer was declined on the ground that the verification report obtained by the Government revealed that while the petitioner was on parole/furlough, he quarreled with Dalip Singh, complaint. The government therefore felt that even now there is no love lost between the parties and therefore it didn''t choose; to exercise their discretion for premature release of the petitioner.

In the instant petition filed by the petitioner for his premature release he was stated in para 4 (e) that the allegation with regard to his quarrel with one Dalip Singh is wholly frivolous and false.

In the reply filed by the respondent it has been reiterated that the case of the petitioner had been rejected keeping in view the report of the District authorities and the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the rejection of the petitioner''s prayer for premature release on the ground that he had quarrelled with one Dalip Singh constituted a vague allegation and this merely suggests that there is some apprehension of breach of peace. The learned counsel therefore maintained that there is no justification for denying the petitioner''s prayer for premature release.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. I find that the stand of the respondent is positive whereby it rejected vide Annexure P5 the petitioner''s prayer for premature release on the ground that he had quarrelled Dalip Singh while he was on parole. If the petitioner has chosen to pick up quarrel with Dalip Singh, while he was merely on probation the government can reasonably feel that he may not desist from continuing his offensive attitude after his premature release even at this stage. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the view formed by the Government is vague or that it is merely in the nature of an apprehension of breach of peace. Had the respondent not quoted the specific instance; of Dalip Singh with whom the petitioner had quarrelled while on probation, there could have been some scope for the petitioner to urge that the allegation regarding apprehension of breach of peace against him is vague but such are not the facts in the present case. There is no reason to disregard the communication of the district authorities to the Government regarding the fact that the petitioner had quarrelled with Dalip Singh and this circumstance constituted a valid ground for the respondent to reject the petitioner''s prayer. I, therefore do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. The respondents are however directed to reconsider the petitioner''s prayer for premature release after six months and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order after obtaining a fresh report from the district authorities regarding the petitioner''s activities.