Ms. Anita Chaudhry, J.: - The petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment in FIR No. 40 dated 30.12.1994, under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC, Police Station Raman, District Bathinda, awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated 11.03.1997. His appeals have been dismissed by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court.

2. The jail authorities recommended his case for premature release, but the competent authority rejected the case vide order dated 21.08.2012 observing that he has committed a heinous crime by murdering his wife. He is said to have undergone more than 12 years of actual imprisonment and about 18 years with remissions. The grouse of the petitioner is that despite this, the State Government erred in declining the relief to him.

3. Upon notice, reply has been filed by the State of Punjab, wherein the custody and eligibility of the petitioner for consideration of his case for premature release is not disputed. It has also been admitted that the case of the petitioner was recommended for premature release. However, the case of the petitioner was rejected on 21.08.2012 by the competent authority as he had committed a heinous crime of murder of his wife. It has further been averred that in the light of policy dated 04.04.2013, the case of the petitioner has now to be reconsidered only after lapse of two years of rejection of the earlier request.

4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as of the learned State counsel.

5. It is apparent from the reply filed by the State that there is no dispute as to the eligibility of the petitioner for consideration of his case for premature release. The primary objection of the State is that as per policy dated 04.04.2013, the case of the petitioner can only be considered after lapse of two years of rejection of earlier prayer for premature release. This issue is no more res integra. It has time and again been held by this Court that for the grant of remissions, the life convict would be governed by the policy of remission of government prevailing on the date of judgment of conviction and not the policy which existed on the date of consideration of his premature release. Reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Jagdish, [2010(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1121 (SC) : 2010(2) Law Herald (SC) 1346] : 2010(2) RCR (Crl.) 464. Even otherwise, two years have already lapsed from the date when the earlier request of the petitioner for premature release was declined. Therefore, this stand of the State is not sustainable and the case of the petitioner for premature release has to be considered by the State Government in the light of policy instructions prevailing at the time of his conviction and not subsequent one.

6. It is also apparent from the perusal of rejection order (Annexure P-3) that the claim of the petitioner for premature release has been declined on the ground that he has committed heinous crime, but it is nowhere stated that the case of the petitioner does not fall in the category as mentioned in the policy concerning premature release, rather it speaks that the petitioner has undergone the requisite custody. The Competent Authority, thus, has simply adhered to the heinous crime yardstick for which the convict has already suffered. It is not in dispute that he did not indulge in any jail offence, rather the authorities recommended his case for premature release, considering the fact that he had undergone the custody required to be undergone by the inmate convicted for heinous crime. All these vital aspects were not considered by the competent authority while declining the relief. In Jagdish’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with liberty of an individual and highlighting the modern reformative concept of punishment, held as under:-

“37. Liberty is one of the most precious and cherished possessions of a human being and he would resi