IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-33454 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 18, 2008 Gulab Singh … 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. 58930 & 58931 of 2008 Allowed, as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-33454 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-7584 of 2008) filed by the petitioner – prisoner for his premature release was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Sham Sunder, J.) on 25.03.2008, directing the Competent Authority “to consider and Crl. Misc. No. M-33454 of 2008 decide the case of the petitioner, for pre-mature release, in accordance with the provisions of law, by passing a speaking order, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” In compliance with that order, the Competent Authority considered the case for premature release of the petitioner – prisoner but deferred it on a finding that he had not yet completed 20 years of total sentence. It was, otherwise, noticed by the Committee in the impugned order itself that the petitioner had undergone actual sentence of 14 years, 11 months and 22 days. That order was challenged by the petitioner – prisoner by filing a Criminal Misc. No. M-25654 of 2008 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2008 with a direction to the Competent Authority to dispose of the premature release case of the petitioner in the light of the Mahender Singh’s case (supra) within seven days from the date of that order. The order has concededly not been complied with. 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 by the Competent Authority. 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-33454 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