Criminal Misc. No.M-25079 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-25079 of 2008 Date of decision : 5.12.2008 Pardeep Kumar .....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 27.1.1997 Initially, the petitioner ( a lifer) filed Criminal Misc. No.M- 10100-2008 for a similar relief, which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Sham Sunder, J.) on 23.4.2008 with a direction to the respondents to decide the premature release plea of the petitioner herein in accordance with law of the land. In compliance therewith, the State Level Committee considered the premature release case of the petitioner but declined it by observing that the case falls within the ambit of Section 433-A of the Cr.P.C. As per which that a life convict must undergo 14 years of actual sentence and 20 years of total sentence before his case for premature release can be considered. It was noticed that the premature case of the petitioner herein would be considered on completion of 14 years of actual sentence and 20 years of total sentence. It is noticed in the impugned order itself that the petitioner had undergone actual sentence for 11 years Criminal Misc. No.M-25079 of 2008 -2- **** 5 months and 26 days and the total sentence of 13 years ll months and 10 days as on 3.5.2008. It is common ground that as per policy prevalent at the time of conviction of the petitioner, his case for premature release was required to be considered on completion of 10 years of actual sentence and 14 years of total sentence. It would, thus, be evident that petitioner herein has since been completed 12 years of actual sentence and 14 years of total sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the entire approach of the competent authority is invalid inasmuch as the deferment of the consideration of the case afore-mentioned in the light of the Haryana Government policy dated 12.4.2002 is violative of law laiddown by the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Mahender Singh and others 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 909. 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-25079 of 2008 -3- **** 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 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