Criminal Misc.No. M- 18002 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No. M- 18002 of 2010 Date of decision:- 08.10.2010 Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjiv Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Addl. A.G. Haryana. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuing directions to the respondents to decide the premature release case of the petitioner as per Haryana Government Policy dated 12.4.2002 (Annexure P-1) as the petitioner has completed the required imprisonment of ten years of actual sentence. Reply has been filed on behalf of State. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that even as per reply of respondent-State petitioner has already undergone more than eleven years of actual sentence and that hence he should have been released as per the policy of Government. It has been contended by learned counsel for the State that case of petitioner has been considered by the Government as Criminal Misc.No. M- 18002 of 2010 -2- per policy (Annexure P-1), on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner and that however as per the said policy petitioner was to undergo 10 years of actual sentence and 14 years of total sentence including remissions and excluding of parole period and however he has undergone only 12 years 10 months and 27 days including the remissions and excluding the parole period as on 20.7.2010. Hence, it is contended that even today the petitioner has not completed the sentence as per law. There is force in the arguments of learned counsel for the State that the case of petitioner has been considered by the Government as per policy (Annexure P-1), on which reliance has been placed on behalf of petitioner. According to the said policy, he was to undergo 10 years of actual sentence and 14 years of total sentence including remissions and excluding of parole period. However, he has undergone only 12 years 10 months and 27 days including remission and excluding the parole period till 20.7.2010 and as on today as well he has not undergone the total sentence of 14 years. The present petition is premature. In view of these facts, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. October 08, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE