IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-33643 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 22, 2008 Naresh Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. Vijay K. Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. (Oral) Crl.Misc. Nos. 59288 & 59289 of 2008 Allowed, as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. 33643 of 2008 Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr.S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State. The petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Misc. No. M- 23426 of 2006, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order:- “As the view to be taken by the Apex Court in Anil Sharma’s case (supra) shall be binding on all, being Crl. Misc. No. 33643 of 2008 (O&M) the law of the land, these petitions are disposed off with the directions that immediate after the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Sharma’s case (supra) the cases of each of the petitioner shall be considered by the Competent Authority for their release from custody within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said judgment / order and whosoever would be found entitled petitioners. These directions being issued in order to obviate hardship to the petitioners who are presently in custody so that they may not be required to knock at the doors of the Court even if they are entitled for any relief in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending case referred to above.” In compliance with the orders of this Court, the premature release plea was taken up on 02.06.2008 and deferred by observing that it would be taken up consideration only after he had completed 14 years of actual sentence and 20 years of total sentence. As per the policy prevalent on the date of his conviction, he was required to undergo actual sentence of 10 years RI and total sentence of 14 years (including remissions) before his case for premature release could be taken up by the Competent Authority. It is that policy which has to govern the issue of his premature release in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court 2 Crl. Misc. No. 33643 of 2008 (O&M) in State of Haryana vs. Mahender Singh and others, 2007(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 909. It is obvious from the facts and circumstances of the case that the Committee has not complied with the orders passed by the Apex Court in Mahender Singh’s case (supra). While deciding such like cases, the Committee has also to take into consideration the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M-12868 of 2003 – Jiya Lal Vs. State of Haryana and others. Insofar the order dated 06.03.2007 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court is concerned, it has been pointed out that the Apex Court had dismissed the case Anil Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and another on 29.01.2008. The State was duly represented before the Apex Court at the time of hearing of the case. In the light of the above facts, it is apparent that the Competent Authority prima facie committed an error of law in ignoring the law laid down by the Apex court in Mahender Singh’s case and Jiya Lal’s case (supra). The petition shall stand disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to dispose of the premature release case of the petitioner – prisoner within a period of two months from today. The order shall be FAXED immediately to the District Magistrate concerned who shall pass whatever order he deem fit on the presentation of surety bonds etc. 3 Crl. Misc. No. 33643 of 2008 (O&M) However, in the facts and circumstances of the case noticed in the foregoing paras of this order, it is ordered that the petitioner – prisoner shall be released forthwith, as an interim measure. The release shall, of course, be subject to the furnishing of adequate surety etc. by the petitioners – prisoners undertaking the return to law if so ordered by this Court. It will be for the learned State counsel to communicate the order to the Competent Authority. Copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary. December 22, 2008 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 4