Criminal Misc. No.M-29805 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-29805 of 2008 Date of decision : 5.12.2008 Sarwan Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.H.P.S. Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner was convicted on 12.11.1998. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order declining his premature release plea is in violation inasmuch as it is violative of law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Mahender Singh and others 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 909 as per which the policy in currency on the date of conviction is to rule the roost. (In the context of observation in the impugned order that the premature release case of the petitioner had been taken up in pursuance of a verbal order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, it is common ground that no such order otherwise came to be passed by a Coordinate Bench of this court while it was otherwise dealing with a number of petitions for the premature release. It is common ground otherwise that if the policy prevalent on the date of conviction of the petitioner is taken into consideration, the petitioner herein would have become eligible (for consideration of premature release) on completion of 10 years actual Criminal Misc. No.M-29805 of 2008 -2- **** sentence and 14 years of total sentence. It is also beyond the pale of controversy that petitioner has presently undergone actual sentence of 12 years 8 months and 29 days and total sentence of 14 years and 9 months. In order to buttress that plea, learned counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of this Court to an order dated 5.8.2008 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (A.G.Masih, J.) in Criminal Misc. No. 39648-M of 2007. In the opening para thereof, the Court noticed a contention on behalf of the petitioner therein that the instructions prevalent at the time of conviction of the petitioner would be applicable for consideration of a premature release plea in view of the law laid down in Mahender Singh's case (supra). The Bench further noticed that “this position of law is accepted by the counsel for the respondent-State.” In the face thereof, learned State Counsel states that a review petition against the judgment in Mahender Singh's case (supra) has been filed before the Apex Court. He, however, concedes that the judgment in Mahender Singh's case (supra) has not been stayed by the Apex Court till date. In the light fore-going discussion, the petition shall stand allowed to the extent that the competent authority is directed to dispose of the premature release case of the petitioner-prisoner in the light of the Apex Court judgment in Mahender Singh's case (supra) which (judgment) is not indicated to have been stayed by the Apex Court till date). The State Level Committee shall keep this aspect in view. It shall also keep in view that the mere filing of the review plea, in the absence of a stay order, does not enable the Committee to defer the applicability of Mahender Singh's case to the cases of indicated category. The exercise shall be concluded within two months from today. Criminal Misc. No.M-29805 of 2008 -3- **** However, in the meantime, the petitioner shall be released on furnishing of adequate surety etc. undertaking return to the law in case so ordered by this Court. That release is being ordered, as an interim measure, in view of the conceded position that he has already undergone actual sentence and total sentence in terms of the policy prevalent on the date of conviction. 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. December 05, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE