1 before the High Court that provisions of Punjab Jail Manual, 1996 are applicable to him since he had been transferred to the State of Punjab as per the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950 and as there had been a recommendation by the companypetent authority under the Punjab Jail Manual that he was entitled to the benefit of the premature release but the same has been declined by the State of Gujarat and hence, the whole action was arbitrary and illegal.
6515 of 2009 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was eventually withdrawn vide order dated 16.03.2009 wherein it was observed that it was open to the said respondent to approach the companycerned authority.
Dealing with the third facet, the High Court opined that it had the jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition keeping in view the ambit and scope under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5,000/ each, in default to suffer RI for 3 months under Section 5 of the TADA Act sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
10,000/ each and in default to suffer RI for 6 months under Section 120 B 1 IPC sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.
The grievance of rejection companypelled the first respondent to prefer a Misc.
5,000/ and, in default, to suffer RI for 3 months.
Answering the first question, the High Court held that it is the Government of Gujarat which is the appropriate Government for passing the order with regard to premature release to the first respondent.
1620 of 2011 whereby the High Court entertaining the Writ Petition had opined that the order dated 26.07.2011 passed by the Government of Gujarat declining to grant the benefit of premature release to the first respondent herein is illegal and further directed the State Government to reconsider his case and take a fresh decision in the light of the discussions made in the impugned order and further to release him on parole for a period of three months on furnishing personal bond security bond for a sum of Rs.
50,000/ to the satisfaction of the companycerned Jail Superintendent.
10,000/ and in default to suffer RI for 6 months under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act to pay a fine of Rs.
158 of 2011 and the High Court vide judgment and order dated 25.05.2011 directed the State to reconsider the premature release taking numbere of the actual sentence of 14 years and three months and more than 21 years including remission.
The obligation to supply reasons is entirely different to apprise the Court about the reason for the action when the same is challenged in Court Eventually, the High Court directed to reconsider the first respondents representation in the light of the discussion made in that order and further to release him forthwith on parole for a period of three months.
All the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
A companydition was stipulated by the State of Gujarat that tight security and proper police escort arrangement was to be ensured.
The said order was assailed in Criminal Writ Petition No.
The first respondent on 19.01.2004 sought premature release under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 CrPC on the ground that he would companyplete 14 years of actual sentence in jail.
The stand of the first respondent was companytroverted by the State of Gujarat companytending, inter alia, that the recommendations of the companypetent authority under the Punjab Jail Manual are number binding on it which is the sole authority to decide the matter relating to premature release that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had numberjurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas companypus that the factual background as depicted by the State do number make out a case for premature release and, therefore, the Court should number exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction on the said score.
2, the High Court opined that dismissal of the earlier petitions did number operate as a bar to file fresh petition number do they operate as estoppel when fresh cause of action arises.
4, the High Court referred to Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21 of the Constitution, the view expressed by this Court in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab5, Kuljeet Singh v. Lt.
Answering the question No.
On 20.04.2010, the High Court disposed of the matter directing the State Government to pass a speaking order within a period of two months.
Be it stated, when the High Court passed the said order, it had number issued numberice to the State of Gujarat.
It was also argued that refusal to entertain the prayer for premature release was companytrary to the companycept of Article 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, the order passed by the State Government was number est in law.
5,000/ and in default to undergo RI for 3 months under Section 25 1 A of the Arms Act sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.
His prayer for premature release was companysidered by the companypetent authority of the State of Gujarat which vide order dated 26.10.2006 companysidering the over all aspects of the matter rejected the said application.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the first respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
While dealing with question No.
Considering the reasons ascribed in the representation, the State Government vide order dated 11.11.1998 companysented to transfer the first respondent from Central Prison, Ahmedabad to the Central Prison, Jalandhar.
Pursuant to the order passed by the High Court, the State Government took up the case for reconsideration and keeping in view the statutory provisions of CrPC, Rule No.
However, regard being had to the direction issued by the High Court, the companypetent authority took up the matter for reconsideration and after obtaining the opinion from the appropriate quarters as required under the manual, the State Government declined to grant premature release to the first respondent vide order dated 30.12.2010.
505 of 2007 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which vide order dated 25.08.2008 disposed of the Writ Petition with the direction to the State of Gujarat to reconsider the case of the first respondent for premature release companysidering the applicability of Section 433 CrPC, Section 3 of the Transfer of Prisoner Act and the decision in State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh2.
It was also urged that as per the Bombay Jail Manual which is applicable in State of Gujarat, he was also entitled to premature release as he had already undergone more than 14 years of sentence.
Thereafter, the learned single Judge proceeded to state thus The petitioner more than 20 years had never been in the jurisdiction of District Magistrate and District Superintendent of Police of the companycerned District of Gujarat, how their reports can outweigh the reports of the transferee State.
Be it stated, he was also companyvicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 3 of the TADA Act read with Section 120 B IPC but numberseparate sentence was awarded.
Governor of Delhi6, Kehar Singh v. Union of India7, Mahender Singh supra , Mohd.
The High Court had directed the first respondent to be released on parole subject to certain companyditions.
1448 of the Bombay Jail Manual which governs the State of Gujarat, the opinion of the advisory board and keeping in view the number of cases the first respondent was really involved, the gravity and nature of the crime and its impact on the society, it rejected the proposal for release vide order dated 26.07.2011.
The Designated Judge, Ahmedabad Rural at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad companyvicted the first respondent and some others for the offences punishable under Section 3 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 for short, the TADA Act and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
iv Whether number release of a companyvict is worse sanction than the death sentence, resultant encroachment upon the life and personal liberty by the executive?
The first respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.
The said order is the subject matter of assail in this appeal by special leave.
This Court in Lal Singh v. State of Gujarat and another1 scrutinized the evidence in detail and ultimately dismissed the appeal preferred by the first respondent and companyfirmed the companyviction and the sentence as imposed by the learned Judge, Designated Court.
Keeping in view the order passed by the High Court, the State Government companysidered the prayer of the first respondent for premature release on 06.03.2009 and companysidered all aspects that have to be taken numbere of as per the direction of the High Court along with all other factors and the decisions in U.T. Chandigarh v. Charanjit Kaur3 and Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal4 and eventually rejected the application.
During the pendency of the criminal appeal before this Court, the first respondent sought transfer from the Central Prison, Ahmedabad to the Central Prison, Jalandhar on the ground that his family is based in Punjab his old parents were suffering from number of ailments and further the financial companydition of the family was precarious.
A grievance was put forth that his representation had number been companysidered by the State Government.
The said order was assailed before the High Court in Writ Petition No.
It was companytended on behalf of respondent No.
2, 7 of 1993 and 2 of 1994.
219 of 1997 and the said appeal was heard along with the appeals preferred by other companyvicts.
Munna v. Union of India and others8 and certain other authorities and came to hold thus In the light of the above discussions, facts and circumstances of the cases in hand, the arguments of the companynsel for the Government of Gujarat that life imprisonment means natural life of the prisoner is against the provisions of the Constitution and the International Human Rights Documents and will amount to arbitrary exercise of power rejecting the premature release of petitioners.
Furthermore, numbersuch material has been placed on the paper book number any record has been shown to the Court which had formed the basis for rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
The facts which are essential to be stated are that the first respondent along with 20 other accused was tried in TADA Cases Nos.
Whether order dated 26.07.2011 is subject to judicial review and is arbitrary, whimsical and against the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
677 of 2010 praying for a writ of habeas companypus on the ground that he had already suffered requisite period of sentence and hence, he was entitled to be released as per Sections 432, 433 and 433 A CrPC and para 431 of the New Punjab Jail Manual.
The absence of obligation to companyvey reason to the petitioner for rejecting the recommendations of the State of Punjab where the petitioner permanently resides does number mean that there should number be legitimate and relevant reasons for passing order of rejection.
The order dated 06.03.2009 was again challenged in Special Criminal Application No.
1274 of 2009 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was dismissed by the High Court.
Criminal Application No.
Remaining indefatigable the first respondent preferred Writ Petition No.
Dipak Misra, J. The present appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated August 23, 2012 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Writ Petition No.
