The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a convict to premature release based on government instructions and relevant legal provisions, as well as the binding nature of the policy in existence at the time of conviction.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J —This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking consideration of the case of the petitioner as per government Instructions (Annexure P-1) dated 08.07.1991 for premature release of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was arrested under a FIR No. 23 dated 17.4.1993 under Sections 302, 460, 376 (2) (g), 397, 323, 404, 34 IPC Police Station Dayalpura District Bathinda. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge, Bathinda on 10.10.1996 and the Criminal Appeal filed by him was dismissed by this Court on 26.07.2002. Having undergone more than 23 years 5 months of actual sentence of imprisonment and including remissions more than 31 years of sentence (at the time of filing of the criminal writ petition), the petitioner seeks premature release relying upon Instructions dated 08.07.1991. The representation of the petitioner was declined by order dated 09.11.2015, leading to the filing of the instant petition.

3. Mr. Rana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends that the petitioner herein having undergone more than 23 years 5 months of actual sentence of imprisonment and including remissions more than 31 years of sentence would be entitled to premature release, as he fulfills all the conditions as per government Instructions dated 08.07.1991. It is argued that his case was rejected by the government on 17.09.2015 on the ground that the petitioner had committed a heinous crime. It is argued that similarly situated persons, who had been convicted for heinous crimes like the petitioner, had been released and non consideration of the case of the petitioner tantamounts to discrimination. It is argued that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India Versus V. Sriharan @ Murugan and others , (2016) 1 RCR(Criminal) 234 is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Reliance is also placed upon a judgment rendered in Dharma Pal Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others , (2013) 9 SCC 798 where a person sentenced to undergo life imprisonment was released on completion of 14 years of imprisonment.

4. Per contra, Mr. A.S. Sandhu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State, submits that the case of the petitioner has been considered and rejected on the ground that he has been convicted for a heinous crime. It is argued that any convict undergoing life imprisonment, as in the case of the petitioner, cannot claim premature release as a matter of right. It is submitted that if the convict is released prematurely or is granted interim bail, it will be against the principles of natural justice as the petitioner has committed the heinous crime of murdering Gurcharan Singh and also committing a gang rape on three helpless females belonging to the deceased family, one being a minor.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have perused the pleadings of the case.

6. The judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench in V. Sriharan @ Murugan formulated several questions one of them being: 'Whether imprisonment for life in terms of Section 53 read with Section 45 of the Penal Code are meant imprisonment for rest of the life of the prisoner or a convict undergoing life imprisonment has a right to claim remission and whether as per the principle enunciated in paras 91 to 93 of Swami Shraddananda (2), a special category of sentence may be made for the very few cases where the death penalty might be substituted by the punishment of imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term in excess of fourteen years and to put that category beyond application of remission?'. The Constitution Bench further split the question framed into two parts:

"(i) As to whether the imprisonment for life means till the end of convict's life with or without any scope of remission? and (ii) whether a special category of sentence instead of death for a term exceeding 14 years can be made by putting that category beyo