[Premature Release Policy] HC: Benefits Granted to Prisoners; which are prevalent at the Time of Conviction & Sentence

 

In, Kabal Singh vs State of Punjab and others, a Single Bench of P&H HC has held that, The state government's policy on premature release of prisoners, as it relates to the pertinent claim, would be the policy as it relates to the guilty verdict and sentence.

Facts

The court was dealing with a petition of a life convict undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment, with respect to a case emanating from an FIR registered under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The present petitioner, on anvil of a policy, drawn by the State of Punjab, had claimed the contemplated therein benefit qua his becoming prematurely released from prison. However, upon his representation, competent authority, drew an order, declining his espoused claim for his becoming prematurely released from prison.

Therefore, the present petitioner, is led to institute thereagainst the instant petition.

Court Observation

The Single Bench of Punjab & Haryana HC observed that;  It is trite law, that the policy applicable to the relevant claim, would be the policy as applicable, at the time, when the verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith sentence of life imprisonment, becomes imposed, upon the life convict.

In respect of the life convict's claim for his becoming prematurely released from prison, carries an underlining, that an adult lift convict, was required to be spending in prison, a total span of 14 years imprisonment along with remissions. However, the period spent on parole by the life convict, is to be excluded from the above spell.

Court further noted that the actually spent period, in prison, by the life convict is about 10 years along with remission for a term about 8 years thereupon making it a total sentence of 16 years.

Court Judgment

The Punjab & Haryana HC, While disposing off the petition has held that; Based on this policy, the court held that the verdict of conviction against the petitioner was passed in 2012 when the 1991 Policy was prevalent. According to 1991 policy, the petitioner was to either undergo 8 years of total actual sentence or 14 years imprisonment along with remission period. 

Therefore, the HC concluded, the impugned order suffers from a gross fallacy, and, infirmity, inasmuch as it is in complete derogation of the relevant contemplation(s) . Hence, the impugned order is quashed, and, set aside. The Superintendent of the Jail concerned, is directed, prematurely release the present petitioner, from the prison concerned.

Case: Kabal Singh vs State of Punjab and others

Citation: FAO No.5954 of 2014

 

Bench: Hon’ble Mr Justice Pankaj Jain

Decided on:  4^th August, 2022. 

Read Judgment ;

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure