CRM No.M 28520 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M 28520 of 2010 Date of decision: 2.12.2010 Harnek Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.DS Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed by petitioner Harnek Singh under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 20.8.2010 (Annexure P-2) and for directing the respondents to grant him premature release. Reply on behalf of respondent-State has already been filed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Admitted facts are that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in case FIR No.110 dated 6.7.1994 registered under Sections 302, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Ellenabad by the then Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa on 17.7.1995. His appeal against the said judgment was dismissed by this Court. He was readmitted in jail on CRM No.M 28520 of 2010 2 17.4.2000. He has already undergone more than 15 years and 5 months of actual sentence and more than 19 years total sentence including remission minus parole period as on 20.8.2010. It is also admitted fact that his case is covered under paragraph 2(b) of the policy dated 4.2.1993 according to which, he was required to undergo 10 years of actual sentence including under trial period and 14 years of total sentence including remission minus parole. Hence, admittedly he has already undergone the period of sentence much more than required as per paragraph No.2 (b) of the policy. It has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent- State that the petitioner was not released, as he surrendered late in the jail on two occasions after availing parole and that last jail punishment was awarded to him on 28.7.2008 for surrendering late in the jail by one day after completion of parole period. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was late by one day to surrender in the jail after availing 2nd furlough and for that he was already punished by deducting his 5 days remission by Superintendent, District Jail, Sirsa. It is further contended that on the 2nd occasion while he was availing emergency parole, he surrendered late by one day for that he was already punished by reducing 3 days remission by Superintendent, District Jail, Sirsa. Hence, the alleged jail offences committed by the petitioner are too minor and for that he has already been punished. He has undergone much more sentence than required under paragraph 2(b) of the Policy. CRM No.M 28520 of 2010 3 Hence, in view of these facts, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider and decide the premature release case of the petitioner within month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order without considering the alleged jail offences i.e. he has surrendered late in the jail after availing furlough for one day and again surrendered late for one day after availing parole. December 2, 2010 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE