CWP No.2657 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.2657 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.01.2011 **** Rajinder Kumar @ Raju . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Monica Chibber Sharma, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgement and order dated 07.11.1997. The petitioner’s request for premature release having been turned down that he has approached this Court. (2). It appears from the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner has already undergone actual sentence of more than 14 years besides the total sentence of more than 24 years and 3 months with remission (after deduction of parole period). CWP No.2657 of 2010.doc - 2 – The petitioner’s case for premature release was considered in terms of the Government policy dated 08.07.1991 but has been turned down on the report of the District Magistrate who is said to have apprehended “danger to the State security and possibility of breach of peace” at the hands of the petitioner. (3). Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the report of the District Magistrate dated 17.03.2009/15.04.2009 (Annexure R1) appears to be based upon mere conjectures and surmises. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is a professional/hardened criminal with an instinct to indulge in heinous crimes after his premature release. His conduct while undergoing the sentence also does not support the apprehension expressed by the District Magistrate. (4). For the reason afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 17.03.2009/15.04.2009 (Annexure R1) is quashed and the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Punjab is directed to re-consider the petitioner’s claim for premature release in accordance with the Government policy dated 08.07.1991 and pass CWP No.2657 of 2010.doc - 3 – an appropriate order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (5). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 04.01.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge