Criminal Writ Petition No. 919 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No. 919 of 2011 Date of decision : July 12, 2011 Ajit Singh alias Jit Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. HS Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Ajit Singh alias Jit Singh has approached this Court by way of instant criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for offence under section 376 IPC for committing rape on his own daughter and also sentenced for other allied offences. Petitioner's grouse in the instant writ petition is that in accordance with State policy dated 8.7.1991, Annexure P/1, the petitioner is entitled to premature release but the petitioner's case for premature release has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 18.08.2010, Annexure P/2. The petitioner accordingly seeks quashing of Criminal Writ Petition No. 919 of 2011 -2- the said order Annexure P/2 and direction to respondents to release the petitioner forthwith. Reply on behalf of respondents filed today in Court by State counsel is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Copy supplied to the opposite counsel. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Case of the petitioner for premature release has been rejected because he committed the heinous crime of committing rape on his own daughter. In Government Policy, Annexure P/1 for premature release of life convicts, the life convicts have been categorised into five categories. Category A is of life convicts whose death sentence has been commutted to life imprisonment. They have to undergo actual imprisonment of 14 years and imprisonment with remission (excluding parole period) for 20 years before their case is considered for premature release. Category B is of life convicts who have been sentenced for offences for which death is a punishment and who have committed heinous crime. They have to undergo 12 years actual imprisonment and 18 years imprisonment including remission. Category C is of life convicts for offences for which death is a penalty but the crimes are not considered heinous. They have to undergo actual imprisonment of 10 years and imprisonment including remission for 14 years. Category D is of life convicts for offences for which death is not a punishment but who have committed heinous crime. They also have to undergo 10 years actual imprisonment and 14 years imprisonment including Criminal Writ Petition No. 919 of 2011 -3- remission. Category E of the remaining life convicts requires actual imprisonment of 8 years and imprisonment including remission of 14 years. Perusal of order Annexure P/2 reveals that the respondents considered the case of the petitioner under category B requiring 12 years actual imprisonment and imprisonment including remission of 18 years. However, the case of the petitioner does not fall under category B because death is not a punishment of offence under section 376 IPC. Consequently, case of the petitioner would fall under category D, even if it is assumed that he committed heinous crime. However, according to policy Annexure P/1, the offence committed by the petitioner is not categorised as heinous crime although otherwise from the purview of the society and our traditions and culture the offence committed by the petitioner may be termed as heinous crime. Under category D, the convict is supposed to undergo actual imprisonment of 10 years and imprisonment including remission for 14 years. Strictly speaking case of the petitioner would fall under category E requiring actual imprisonment of 8 years and imprisonment including remission of 14 years. According to reply filed by the respondents, the petitioner has undergone actual imprisonment (excluding parole period) for 14 years 2 months and 18 days as on 18.5.2011 i.e. exceeding 14 years 04 months as on today. The petitioner has also undergone imprisonment including remission for 22 years 2 months 18 days as on 18.5.2011 i.e. exceeding 22 years 4 months as on today. Consequently, even if the case of the petitioner is taken to be under category A which is of gravest nature in policy Annexure P/1, even then the petitioner is entitled to be considered Criminal Writ Petition No. 919 of 2011 -4- for premature release. The respondents considered the case of the petitioner under category B and according to the same the petitioner became entitled to premature release more than two years ago. However, the case of the petitioner would not fall either under category A or under category B and would fall under category E or at best under category D. Even considering under category D, the petitioner became entitled to premature release four years ago. At the risk of repetition it is highlighted that the petitioner's case even if taken to be of gravest category A, even then he is entitled to be considered for premature release. For the reasons aforesaid, it is manifest that impugned order Annexure P/2 passed by the respondents is patently illegal and unsustainable. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/2 passed by respondents is set aside and the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of premature release of the petitioner in accordance with law and to pass appropriate order within two months of the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 12, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'