Criminal Misc. No.M-31742 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-31742 of 2008 Date of decision : 5.12.2008 Surat Singh .....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 06.09.2001. Initially, the petitioner ( a lifer) filed Criminal Misc. No.M-2225- 2008 for a similar relief, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 06.8.2008. In that order, this Court noticed that the petitioner therein was relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Mahender Singh and others 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 909. In that case the learned State counsel informed that the meeting of the State Level Committee was fixed for that only for reconsideration of the premature release case of the petitioner therein and also for finalisation of the policy in the light of the judgment in Mahender Singh's case (supra). The petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents therein to take a decision in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex court in Mahender Singh's case (supra). In compliance therewith, the State Level Committee considered the premature release case of the petitioner but declined it by Criminal Misc. No.M-31742 of 2008 -2- **** observing that he is not eligible in terms of the Government instructions dated 13.8.2008, as per which a life convict has to undergo 20 years actual and 25 years total sentence in order to be eligible for consideration for premature release. It was further noticed that the petitioner in this case has undergone only 12 years 02 months and 18 days and 14 years 01 month total sentence. It is common ground otherwise that, as per the policy prevalent on the date of conviction of the petitioner, a convict had to undergo actual sentence of 10 years and total sentence of 14 years to become eligible for premature release. 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-31742 of 2008 -3- **** 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. 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