Criminal Misc. No.M-21843 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-21843 of 2008 Date of decision : 3.10.2008 Gulab .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Ms. Archana Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner was convicted on 5.2.1990, on a charge of having murdered three children in the age group of 5 to 9 years and for having caused disappearance of their bodies. The petitioner claims entitlement for being considered for premature release in terms of 1993 policy on an averment that he, having gone through the required period of actual sentence and also the total sentence, (is eligible in terms thereof ) In a verbal presentation, the learned State counsel contests the validity of the plea advocated on behalf of the petitioner by arguing that the petitioner is required to undergo 20 years of actual imprisonment and 25 years of total imprisonment before his case can be considered for premature release in terms of 2002 policy. In support of the plea that that the policy prevalent at the time of conviction would rule the roost, the learned counsel for the petitioner Criminal Misc. No.M-21843 of 2008 -2- **** draws sustenance from State of Haryana Vs. Mahender Singh & ors 20047 (4) RCR (Criminal) 909. The State counsel, in an act of resistance, argues that a plea for reconsideration/review of the judgment is pending consideration at the hands of the Apex Court. He does not, however, dispute that there is no stay order in the context of the judgment in Mahender Singh's case (supra) granted by the Apex Court till date. The position that emerges from the above discussion is that the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Mahender Singh's case (supra) is law of the land till date. Further, as per it, the policy decision prevalent at the time of conviction would govern the issue of premature release of the petitioner, who was convicted during the currency of that policy and prior to the promulgation of the 2002 policy. In that view of things, I have no hesitation in quashing the order Annexure P-4 vide which the State Level Committee declined the plea of the petitioner for his premature release in terms of 1993 policy. The competent authority (State Level Committee) is directed to pass an order afresh in the matter of premature release of the petitioner in terms of 1993 policy. The exercise shall be concluded within fifteen days from today. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the competent authority. Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary. October 03, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No