IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-34068 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 23, 2008 Kiran Singh and another … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Vijay K. Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. (Oral) Crl. Misc. Nos. 60072 & 60073 of 2008 Allowed, as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-34068 of 2008 Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State. An earlier petition (Crl. Misc. No. M-19601 of 2008) filed by the petitioners was disposed by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2008, which was disposed of by this Court by passing the following order: Crl. Misc. No. M-34068 of 2008 “On consensual basis, it is ordered that the Competent Authority shall consider the premature release case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M-19599 of 2008 – Naresh vs. State of Haryana and another, on 30.10.2008. Disposed of accordingly.” A copy of the order passed by this Court in Naresh Vs. State of Haryana in Crl. Misc. No. M-19599 of 2008 has placed on record as Annexure P-9. As per it, the Competent Authority had been directed to consider the premature release of the petitioner in the light of the following observations made by this court in course of paras 9 and 10 of that judgment:- “9. A perusal of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Mahender Singh’s would categorically and unambiguously indicate that the decision by the Government in the context of classification of prisoner for purpose of grant of remissions was to be prospective and that the policy decision applicable in such cases would be one which was prevailing at the time of conviction. The following observations in the context were made by the Apex Court:- “Whenever, thus, a policy decision is made, persons must be treated equally in terms thereof. A fortiori the policy decision applicable in such cases would be which was prevailing at the time 2 Crl. Misc. No. M-34068 of 2008 of his conviction. [See Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Shimla v. Prem Lata Sood and Ors, 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 249: 2007(3) R.A.J. 253: 2007(7) SCALE 737]” 10. Insofar as the case of the petitioner is concerned, it is clearly falls within the ambit of Clause `B’ which pertain to cases which may be considered after completion of 10 years of actual sentence including undertrial period, provided that the total period of such sentence including remissions is not less than 14 years. The petitioner was convicted on a charge of having murdered one person. It cannot, by any stretch of interpretation, be said that the murder of one person would be a crime of heinous character, particularly when there are no attendant circumstances either on the basis whereof the State could be heard to argue that the offence, for which the petitioner got convicted, was heinous in form. In that view of things, it is apparent that view obtained by the State Level Committee to the effect that petitioner, in order to be eligible for consideration for premature release, had to undergo 14 years of actual sentence and 20 years of total sentence is invalid. It is so held accordingly. It obviously follows therefrom that the interpretation put on the judgment (in Mahender Singh’s case) by the Competent Authority was in appropriate.” 3 Crl. Misc. No. M-34068 of 2008 That order has not been complied with till date. It is apparent from the record that petitioner – Kiran Singh has undergone actual sentence of 15 years and 20 days and the total sentence of 19 years, 11 months and 15 days; whereas Vijay Pal – petitioner no.2 has undergone actual sentence of more than 11 years and the total sentence of more than 14 years. As per the policy prevalent on the date of his conviction, the petitioners were required to undergo actual sentence of 10 years RI and total sentence of 14 years (including remissions) before their case for premature release could be taken up by the Competent Authority. It is that policy which has to govern the issue of their premature release in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Mahender Singh and others, 2007(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 909. The petition shall stand disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to dispose of the premature release case of the petitioners – prisoners within a period of one month from today. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case noticed in the foregoing paras of this order, it is ordered that the petitioner – prisoner shall be unconditionally released forthwith, as an interim measure. It will be for the learned State counsel to communicate the order to the Competent Authority. A copy of the order shall be FAXED to the District Magistrate, Faridabad and the Superintendent, District Jail, Gurgaon. 4 Crl. Misc. No. M-34068 of 2008 Copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary. December 23, 2008 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 5