Criminal Misc. No.M-31742 of 2008 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-31742 of 2008
Date of decision : 5.12.2008
Surat Singh .....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 06.09.2001.
Initially, the petitioner ( a lifer) filed Criminal Misc. No.M-2225-
2008 for a similar relief, which was disposed of by this Court vide order
dated 06.8.2008. In that order, this Court noticed that the petitioner therein
was relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in State of
Haryana Vs. Mahender Singh and others 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 909.
In that case the learned State counsel informed that the
meeting of the State Level Committee was fixed for that only for
reconsideration of the premature release case of the petitioner therein and
also for finalisation of the policy in the light of the judgment in Mahender
Singh’s case (supra). The petition was disposed of with a direction to the
respondents therein to take a decision in the light of the judgment rendered
by the Apex court in Mahender Singh’s case (supra).
In compliance therewith, the State Level Committee
considered the premature release case of the petitioner but declined it by
Criminal Misc. No.M-31742 of 2008 -2-
****
observing that he is not eligible in terms of the Government instructions
dated 13.8.2008, as per which a life convict has to undergo 20 years actual
and 25 years total sentence in order to be eligible for consideration for
premature release. It was further noticed that the petitioner in this case
has undergone only 12 years 02 months and 18 days and 14 years 01
month total sentence.
It is common ground otherwise that, as per the policy
prevalent on the date of conviction of the petitioner, a convict had to
undergo actual sentence of 10 years and total sentence of 14 years to
become eligible for premature release.
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
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
Criminal Misc. No.M-31742 of 2008 -3-
****
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