Justice Sant Prakash passed these orders while allowing a petition filed by Vakil Singh alias Ajaib Singh, who was one of the convicts in Ambala’s sensational Satinder Singh Sekhon murder case of 1994. Former Haryana minister Nirmal Singh was also one of the accused in the case, which was probed by the CBI.
Convict Vakil had filed the instant petition to initiate and consider his case for premature release from jail, as he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment vide order dated February 5, 1997, passed by the CBI court.
His counsel stated that Vakil he has already undergone the required sentence for premature release in view of the policy bearing memo No.36/135/91 IJJ (II) dated April 12, 2002, regarding premature release of the life convicts in exercise of the Powers conferred under Sections 432, 433 and 433(A) of CrPC and Article 161 of the Constitution of India. He also submitted that since the petitioner has already undergone more than the required sentence, his further detention in jail is illegal.
Opposing the plea, the state as well as the central government counsels submitted that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the CBI court, hence as per Section 435(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the state government was required to consult the central government for premature release of the petitioner.
It was further stated that the central government through its order dated April 7, 2017, did not give consent for premature release of the petitioner due to the gravity of offence. It was only after that the state government rejected the petitioner’s representation for premature release on May 17, 2017.
The foremost question required to be adjudicated before the HC was to which policy would be applicable to the present petitioners. It was also noticed by the HC that at the time of conviction of petitioner, the Premature Release Policy dated February 4, 1993 was in existence.
The HC observed that as per the policy applicable at the time of conviction of the petitioner in 1997, for considering premature release, the condition required for life convict was to undergo 14 years of actual sentence, including under-trial period, provided that such sentence including remissions is not less than 20 years.
“As of today, the petitioner has already undergone more than 16 years and nine months of actual sentence and 23 years of total sentence including remissions. However, the concerned authority has rejected the case of the petitioner without recording any definite reason. Thus, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered as per the said policy dated 04.02.1993. As such, the petitioner is entitled to be released prematurely,” the HC observed.
,