IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-33456 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 18, 2008 Bir @ Bir Pal … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana. … 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. 58933 & 58934 of 2008 Allowed, as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-33456 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-5493 of 2008) filed by the petitioner – prisoner for his premature release was disposed of by this Court on 15.09.2008 with the following order: “In the face of a precise averment that the declining of premature release of the petitioner is not in accord with Crl. Misc. No. M-33456 of 2008 the law of the land, the learned State counsel informs that the relevant matter is under consideration of the Competent Authority and a decision is likely to be arrived at within one month. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petition may be disposed of in the light of the State stance. Disposed of accordingly.” In compliance with that order, the Competent Authority considered the case but deferred it by recording the observation that he has not completed 20 year of actual sentence. It is otherwise noticed in the impugned order itself that the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 14 years, 11 months and 27 days. Apart therefrom, the impugned order is also violative of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M-12868 of 2003 – Jiya Lal Vs. State of Haryana and others (Annexure P/6). It is apparent otherwise that the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Mahender Singh and others, 2007(4) RCR, (Criminal) 909, had not been taken into consideration. It is the policy prevalent on the date of conviction which was to rule the roost. As per the policy in currency at that point of time, the petitioner was required to undergo actual sentence for a period of 10 years and total sentence for a period of 14 years. Thus, he is eligible for consideration for premature release. 2 Crl. Misc. No. M-33456 of 2008 The petition shall stand disposed of, with a direction to the Competent Authority to dispose of the premature release case of the petitioner – prisoner within a period of two months 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 released forthwith, as an interim measure. The release shall, of course, be subject to the furnishing of adequate surety etc. by the petitioners – prisoners undertaking the return to law if so ordered by this Court. It will be for the learned State counsel to communicate the order to the Competent Authority. Copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary. December 18, 2008 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3