Sewa Singh vs State of Haryana

V.K. Bali, J. (Oral)

Sewa Singh through present petition filed by him under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks direction to be issued to the respondents to set him at liberty as his further detention would be illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The undisputed facts, on which the relief aforesaid rests, need to be briefly mentioned.

Petitioner was arrested on 30.8.1981 and was tried under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly sentenced on 24.3.1982 for life. By 20.3.1994 he had undergone an actual sentence for a period of 12 years, 6 months and 20 days. The total period of sentence with remissions comes to 18 years, 3 months and 4 days. It is positive case of the petitioner that as per instructions dated 19.11.1991, his case is covered under para 2(b) vide which the petitioner could not be kept in jail for more than ten years.

Prior in point of time he asked for the same relief as has been asked for in the present petition in Crl. Misc. No. 3228M of 1993 and this Court, vide orders dated 2.11.1993 clearly held that the case of petitioner does not fall under para 2(a) of the instructions and rather it falls under para 2(b). It was in consequence of the aforesaid findings that the respondentauthorities were directed to reconsider the matter for premature release of petitioner within six weeks. Respondents have complied with the orders of this Court in only reconsidering the matter within the time stipulated but the case of petitioner has once again been rejected vide orders dated 11.2.1994, Annexure R1.

Mr. Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once it was found that the case of petitioner is not covered under para 2(a) of the instructions aforesaid, any further confinement of the petitioner in judicial lockup would be wholly illegal as also that the impugned order, Annexure R1, is wholly arbitrary and without application of mind as nothing at all has been mentioned as to why the petitioner should be retained for a period of 14 years.

Mr. Duhan, learned Assistant AG, Haryana, in the impressive array of facts as have been noted above, is unable to defend the cause of petitioner. That being so, this petition is allowed. It is ordered that the petitioner be set at liberty, if not required in any other case and subject to the conditions that may be imposed by the respondentState.