IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Writ Petition No. 1242 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: November 2, 2010. Vir Singh @Viru ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.A.G., Punjab. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking directions to release the petitioner from unlawful detention of the State as he fulfilled all the conditions of the instructions dated 08.07.1991, Annexure P2 for his release and that his further detention has become violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent-State. CRWP No.1242 of 2009 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. Admitted facts are that petitioner was convicted in FIR No.226 dated 18.02.1994, P.S. Sangrur, District Sangrur and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 IPC. His appeal against judgment of conviction and order of sentence was also dismissed by this Court. He surrendered before Jail authorities on 20.09.2005. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per policy, Annexure P2 petitioner was required to undergo 10/14 years of sentence and that however, he has already undergone more than the said sentence. Further contends that his case was considered and that he was not released on the ground that three other cases were registered against the petitioner under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the ‘NDPS Act’) when he was on bail in this case. Further contends that already more than 5 years have expired since he committed last offence under NDPS Act i.e. on 16.06.2003. Further contends that he has already undergone more than 10 years 3 months of sentence after deducting parole period as on 05.12.2009 and that as on today he has already completed the actual sentence of more than 11 years. Further contends that he has completed the total sentence of 18 years including remissions. These facts have not been disputed by learned counsel for the State. It has been stated by learned counsel for the State that the case of the petitioner for premature release was not reconsidered by the competent authority in absence of any such provision in the policy. 2 CRWP No.1242 of 2009 Hence, in view of these facts, the present petition is disposed of with direction to respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for his premature release in the light of the observations of this Court made above, and as per law, rules and instructions on the point, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 2, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3