Summarize the following court judgment. N: Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 1991. 422 From the Judgment and Order dated 10.4.1990 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Crl. No. 3635 of 1989. R.S. Suri for the Appellant. Brijender Chahar and Ashok Mathur for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The delay in filing the special leave petition is condoned and leave is granted. The respondent who was undergoing sentence of life imprisonment	 had served a period of eleven and an half years when he made an application for pre mature release. The Punjab and Haryana High Court by the impugned order issued a direction to release the respondent on bail	 observing further that if his mercy petition	 which was pending	 is dismissed	 he will have to surrender. The High Court has not taken into consideration the provisions of Section 433A of the Criminal Procedure Code while passing the order. A week back we have allowed a criminal appeal against a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in another case directing pre mature release on account of good conduct of the respondent in jail serving a life sentence although he had actually been in jail for a period of nine years only. We set aside the order as the provisions under Section 433A had not been taken into consideration	 and remitted the matter to the High Court for reconsideration in accordance with the provisions of Jail Manual. The learned counsel for the respondent in the present appeal attempted to distinguish the case on the ground that here the respondent has been only enlarged on bail and has not been finally released. We do not think that Section 433A	 which is quoted below	 is inapplicable in the present case: "Restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 432	 where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law	 or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under Section 433 into one of imprisonment for life	 such person shall not be released from prison unless he had 423 served at least fourteen years of imprisonment." (emphasis supplied) The respondent in his writ petition before the High Court relied upon three instructions (Annexures P 1 to P 3) in support of his claim that he is entitled to pre mature release. Earlier the High Court had directed the mercy petition	 pending before the Governor	 to be decided within a period of three months. This was not done and a reply was filed on behalf of the State explaining the circumstances under which the matter remained pending. In this background the impugned order was passed. The judicial proceeding dealing with the conviction and sentence of the accused had been earlier concluded	 and the order of his release on bail was passed while finally disposing of the writ petition alleging delay in disposal of the mercy petition. In other words	 no case in now pending before the Court	 and it cannot be suggested that the order of the respondent 's release on bail has been passed as an interim measure pending the decision of a case before the Court. In such a situation the provisions of Section 433A are attracted. The words in the Section quoted above and underlined by us are wide in their application and cannot be restricted as suggested by the learned counsel for the respondent. We	 therefore	 allow the appeal	 set aside the impugned judgment and remit the case to the High Court for reconsideration of the writ petition confined to its limited scope in accordance with law. The respondent shall surrender without delay and only thereafter he shall be allowed to press his application before the High Court. N.P.V. Appeal allowed.

On the application for pre mature release	 made by the respondent	 who was undergoing sentence of life imprisonment and had served a period of eleven and a half years the High Court directed that the respondent 's mercy petition pending before the Governor	 should be decided within three months. Since this was not done	 the High Court directed his release on bail	 observing that if his mercy petition was dismissed he would have to surrender. Against this decision the State filed an appeal before this Court. Allowing the appeal	 this Court	 HELD: The High Court has not taken into consideration the provisions of Section 433A of the Criminal Procedure Code	 1973 while passing the order for the respondent 's release on bail. The judicial proceeding dealing with the conviction and sentence of the accused had been earlier concluded	 and the order was passed while finally disposing of the writ petition alleging delay in disposal of the mercy petition. Thus	 no case is now pending before the court. The order for the respondent 's release on bail has not therefore	 been passed as an interim measure pending the decision of a case before the Court. In such a situation the provisions of Section 433A are attracted. The words "such person shall not be released from prison" are wide in their application and cannot be restricted only to case where the person has been released finally. The judgment in question is set aside and the case remitted to the High Court for reconsideration of writ petition confined to its limited scope.