Criminal Misc. No. M-911 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-911 of 2009 Date of Decision:16.03.2009 Gurmail Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Varinder Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Gurmail Singh under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for holding that he has been illegally deprived of the benefit of pre-mature release and his further detention is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and he is entitled to be released forthwith on usual terms and conditions. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was involved in FIR No.296 dated 14.8.1998 registered under Sections 302/ 364/201/34 IPC at Police Station Ratia. He was convicted and sentenced on 25.10.2001 by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad. Reply is neither filed nor intended to be filed. In the status report, filed on behalf of the respondents, inter-alia it has been pleaded that the pre-mature release case of the petitioner falls under para (b) of the Premature Release Policy dated 13.8.2008 issued by Criminal Misc. No. M-911 of 2009 -2- the Govt. of Haryana. The petitioner has undergone only 10 years, 03 months and 05 days of the actual sentence and a total sentence of 13 years and 19 days including remissions. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Learned counsel for the parties have reiterated the averments as enshrined in their respective pleadings. In State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh and others, 2007(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 909, cases of Maru Ram v. Union of India and others, (1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 107 as well as Mohd. Munna v. Union of India and others, (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 417, were also considered. Their Lordships in re: Mahender Singh (supra) were pleased to hold that `Although no convict can be said to have any constitutional right for obtaining remission in his sentence, he in view of the policy decision itself must be held to have right to be considered therefor. Whenever, thus a policy decision is made, persons must be treated equally in terms thereof. A `fortiori' the policy decision applicable in such cases would be which was prevailing at the time of his conviction. Furthermore, if the Punjab Rules are applicable in the State of Haryana in view of the State Re-organisation Act, no executive instruction would prevail over the statutory Rules. The Rules having defined `convicts' in terms whereof a `life convict' was entitled to have his case considered within the parameters laid down therein, the same cannot be taken away by reason of an executive instruction by redefining the term `life convict'.” It has also been observed that in Mohd. Munna's case, Maru Ram's case (supra) was not considered. Further in re: State of Haryana v. Bhup Singh and others, 2009(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 654, the Criminal Misc. No. M-911 of 2009 -3- Apex Court observed as under:- “We, therefore, are of the opinion that keeping in view the decision of this Court in Mahender Singh (supra), the impugned judgment should be modified directing the appellant to consider the cases of the respondents. It is, therefore, directed that if the respondents have not already been released, the State shall consider their cases in terms of the judgment of this Court in Mahender Singh's case (supra) having regard to the policy decision as was applicable on the date on which they were convicted and not on the basis of the subsequent policy decision of the year 2002.” Adverting to the facts of the instant case, there is no gainsaying the fact that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced on 25.10.2001 in case FIR referred hereinbefore. In view of the preceding discussion, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of Mahender Singh and others' case (supra) as well as Bhup Singh and others' case (supra), having regard to the policy decision as was applicable on the date on which he was convicted within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. If the petitioner's case is covered by the policy decision applicable in his case, he may be released as per rules. Disposed of accordingly. March 16, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No