Criminal Misc. No.M-27998 of 2008 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-27998 of 2008 Date of decision : 5.12.2008 Shree Chand .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner was convicted on 6.11.1993. Initially, the petitioner ( a lifer) filed Criminal Misc. No.M- 12743-2008 for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for premature release. The averment, made in the course thereof, was that he having already undergone actual sentence of 14 years 8 months and total sentence of 21 years and 6 months had become entitled for premature release. That petition was disposed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Sham Sunder, J.) on 19.5.2008 with a direction to the respondents to “consider and dispose of the case of the petitioner for pre-mature release, within two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, in accordance with the provisions of law, rules and instructions in that behalf issued from time to time.” In compliance with the above order of this Court, the State Level Committee considered the premnature release case of the petitioner Criminal Misc. No.M-27998 of 2008 -2- *** and deferred it by observing as under:- “The premature release case of this life convict falls under para 2 (aa) of Haryana Govt. Policy dated 12.4.2002. As per this para, a life convict has to undergo 20 years actual sentence and 25 years total sentence, but this life convict has not been completed his requisite sentence. Therefore, State Level Committee has recommended that the premature release case of this life convict will be re-considered on completion of 20 years actual sentence and 25 years total sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the entire approach of the competent authority is invalid inasmuch as the deferment of the consideration of the case afore-mentioned in the light of the Haryana Government policy dated 12.4.2002 is violative of the law laiddown by the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Mahender Singh and others 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 909. 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-27998 of 2008 -3- *** 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. It is common ground otherwise that petitioner has become entitled for premature release if the case is judged on the touch-stone of the instructions prevalent on the date the petitioner was convicted. Faced with the predicament aforementioned, learned State counsel states that respondents may be afforded two months time to pass an order in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Mahender Singh's case (supra). The petition shall stand disposed of accordingly with a direction to the respondents to consider the premature release case of the petitioner-prisoner in the light of the Apex Court judgment in Mahender Singh's case (supra). The exercise shall be concluded within two months from today. 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