Criminal Misc. No. M-25476 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-25476 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision : 14.01.2011 Prem Kumar ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Varinder Singh Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Dilbagh Singh, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(Oral) Reply filed. Challenge is to the order dated July 29th, 2010 (Annexure P/4) passed by Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Haryana, Jails Department, whereby, Prem Kumar – petitioner was directed to be re-arrested and sent to Jail and that his case for pre-mature release shall be considered after six months' as per policy of the State Government dated February 4th, 1993 (Annexure P/1). 2. Prem Kumar was a convict. He completed the sentence, as provided in the Policy Annexure P/1. However, his case for premature release was not considered because he violated the Jail rules and was accordingly convicted, few days prior to completion of 14 years of actual sentence. This Court by order dated November 27th, 2008 (Annexure P/2) passed in Criminal Misc. No. M-31066 of 2008 titled – Prem Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others directed the State Government to consider the premature release plea of the petitioner in accordance with law unfazed by the fact of his subsequent conviction dated July 1st, 2008. Concededly, the said order was not challenged before the Hon`ble Supreme Court and as such has attained finality. Pursuant to the order, Annexure P/2, the case to release the petitioner prematurely was Criminal Misc. No. M-25476 of 2010 2 considered by the Government and he was prematurely released on January 8th, 2009. Notwithstanding the order Anneuxre P/2 passed by this Court, the same ground of committing jail offence was taken into consideration by the Financial Commissioner, respondent No.1, and the impugned order, Annexure P/4, was passed. 3. Since the petitioner was prematurely released on January 8th, 2009 after considering his case in view of the order (Annexure P/2) passed by this Court, the State Government was not justified in passing the impugned order directing the re-arrest of the petitioner and to consider his case for pre-mature release after six months of confinement in the jail. The impugned order is obviously illegal and is, therefore, set-aside 4. The petition is accordingly allowed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 14.1.2011 som