Criminal Misc. No.M-31722 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-31722 of 2008 Date of decision : 5.12.2008 Badan Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner was convicted on 30.08.1995. Initially, the petitioner ( a lifer) filed Criminal Misc. No.M-5508- 2008 for a similar relief, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 15.9.2008 by noticing an averment by the State counsel that the relevant matter is under consideration of the competent authority and decision is likely to be arrived within one month. Learned counsel for the petitioner conceded disposal of the petition in the light of the State instance. In compliance therewith, the State Level Committee considered the premature release case of the petitioner but declined it by observing that he is not eligible in terms of the Government instructions dated 13.8.2008, as per which a life convict has to undergo 20 years actual and 25 years total sentence in order to eligible for consideration for premature release. It was further noticed that the petitioner in this case has undergone only 17 years 08 months and 14 days and 20 years 01 Criminal Misc. No.M-31722 of 2008 -2- **** month and 06 days total sentence. In order to buttress that plea, learned counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of this Court to an order dated 5.8.2008 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (A.G.Masih, J.) in Criminal Misc. No. 39648-M of 2007. In the opening para thereof, the Court noticed a contention on behalf of the petitioner therein that the instructions prevalent at the time of conviction of the petitioner would be applicable for consideration of a premature release plea in view of the law laid down in Mahender Singh's case (supra). The Bench further noticed that “this position of law is accepted by the counsel for the respondent-State.” In the face thereof, learned State Counsel states that a review petition against the judgment in Mahender Singh's case (supra) has been filed before the Apex Court. He, however, concedes that the judgment in Mahender Singh's case (supra) has not been stayed by the Apex Court till date. In the light fore-going discussion, the petition shall stand allowed to the extent that the competent authority is directed to dispose of the premature release case of the petitioner-prisoner in the light of the Apex Court judgment in Mahender Singh's case (supra) which (judgment) is not indicated to have been stayed by the Apex Court till date). The State Level Committee shall keep this aspect in view. It shall also keep in view that the mere filing of the review plea, in the absence of a stay order, does not enable the Committee to defer the applicability of Mahender Singh's case to the cases of indicated category. The exercise shall be concluded within two months from today. However, in the meantime, the petitioner shall be released on furnishing of adequate surety etc. undertaking return to the law in case so Criminal Misc. No.M-31722 of 2008 -3- **** ordered by this Court. That release is being ordered, as an interim measure, in view of the conceded position that he has already undergone actual sentence and total sentence in terms of the policy prevalent on the date of conviction. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the competent authority. Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary. December 05, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE