IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-33454 of 2008
Date of Decision: December 18, 2008
Gulab Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana.
... Respondents
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. 58930 & 58931 of 2008
Allowed, as prayed for.
Crl. Misc. No. M-33454 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.
An earlier petition (Crl. Misc. No. M-7584 of 2008) filed
by the petitioner – prisoner for his premature release was disposed
of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Sham Sunder, J.) on
25.03.2008, directing the Competent Authority “to consider and
Crl. Misc. No. M-33454 of 2008 2
decide the case of the petitioner, for pre-mature release, in
accordance with the provisions of law, by passing a speaking
order, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.”
In compliance with that order, the Competent Authority
considered the case for premature release of the petitioner –
prisoner but deferred it on a finding that he had not yet completed
20 years of total sentence. It was, otherwise, noticed by the
Committee in the impugned order itself that the petitioner had
undergone actual sentence of 14 years, 11 months and 22 days.
That order was challenged by the petitioner – prisoner
by filing a Criminal Misc. No. M-25654 of 2008 which was allowed
by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2008 with a direction to the
Competent Authority to dispose of the premature release case of
the petitioner in the light of the Mahender Singh’s case (supra)
within seven days from the date of that order. The order has
concededly not been complied with.
It is apparent otherwise that the judgment rendered by
the Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Mahender Singh and
others, 2007(4) RCR, (Criminal) 909, had not been taken into
consideration by the Competent Authority. It is the policy prevalent
on the date of conviction which was to rule the roost. As per the
policy in currency at that point of time, the petitioner was required
to undergo actual sentence for a period of 10 years and total
sentence for a period of 14 years. Thus, he is eligible for
consideration for premature release.
Crl. Misc. No. M-33454 of 2008 3
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.
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 18, 2008 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge