IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-34064 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 23, 2008 Manjoor Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent 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. 60066 & 60067 of 2008 Allowed, as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-34064 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-28799 of 2008) filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 05.11.2008, with a direction to the Competent Authority to dispose of the premature release case of the petitioner in the light Crl. Misc. No. M-34064 of 2008 of Mahender Singh’s case within a period of fortnight from the date of the order. That order has not been complied with till date. That order is reproduced as under for facility of reference:- “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. In the context of the plea raised by the petitioner for his premature release on the premise that he has undergone the required period of actual sentence and also the total period of sentence under the policy prevalent on the date of conviction, the learned State counsel states at the bar that the premature release case of the petitioner shall be disposed of by the Competent Authority in the light of verdict rendered by the Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Mahender Singh, 2007 (4) RCR Criminal, 915, and a judgment rendered by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 12868-M of 2003, Jiya Lal vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 28.07.2006, within 15 days from today. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petition may be disposed of in the light of the statement at the bar made by the learned State counsel. The petition shall stand disposed of accordingly with a direction to the Competent Authority to dispose of the premature release case of the petitioner in the 2 Crl. Misc. No. M-34064 of 2008 light of Mahender Singh’s case (supra) within a fortnight from today.” It is apparent from the perusal thereof that in the light of the averment made by the learned counsel that the policy in currency on the date of conviction (instruction dated 19.11.1991) has to govern the consideration of premature release plea of the petitioner, the learned State counsel had very fairly informed that the premature release case of the petitioner shall be disposed of by the Competent Authority in the light of verdict rendered by the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Mahender Singh, 2007(4) RCR Criminal, 909 and a judgment rendered by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 12868-M of 2003, Jiya Lal Vs. State of Haryana and others. In terms of the policy in currency on the date of conviction, the petitioner – prisoner has become eligible for consideration inasmuch he has undergone actual sentence for a period of more than 14 years and total sentence of more than 18 years. In view of the above presentation, which is not disputed of facts on behalf of the State, and also in view of the fact the review plea filed by the State of Haryana in Mahender Singh’s case (supra) concededly stands dismissed, it is directed that the petitioner shall be unconditionally released forthwith. The learned State counsel states that the Competent Authority shall pass an order on the premature release case of the petitioner otherwise within one month from today. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the Competent Authority. A copy of the 3 Crl. Misc. No. M-34064 of 2008 order shall be FAXED to the District Magistrate, Kaithal and the Superintendent, District Jail, Kaithal. Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary. December 23, 2008 (S.D. Anand) vkd Judge 4