The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider a convict's conduct and antecedents while in jail, rather than solely relying on age or the gravity of the original crime, in the decision-making process for premature release.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. - The petitioner has preferred this instant petition as he is aggrieved against the denial of his premature release, in terms of policy dated 12.04.2002 (Annexure P/1).

2. In brief the facts are, that the petitioner was nominated as an accused in FIR No. 413 dated 30.12. 2004 under Sections 302, 307, 353, 186, 34 IPC, read with Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act, at Police Station Model Town, Panipat. He was tried along with the co-accused and held guilty for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 353, 186, IPC and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act. The petitioner and the co-accused were sentenced to life imprisonment along with payment of fine for offence under section 302 read with Section34 IPC. A Criminal Appeal No. 203 DB of 2006 was preferred against the conviction and sentence and the appeal was dismissed as was the SLP filed against the said judgement. The petitioner applied for premature release on completion of 11 years actual imprisonment and 14 years of total sentence including the remission. This matter was put up before the State-Level Committee and his request for premature release was turned down on the ground that the petitioner was required to undergo 14 years of actual sentence including under trial, provided that the total period of such sentence including remission is not less then 20 years and the said period was not completed. The case of the petitioner was considered again on completion of 14 years of actual sentence including under trial, and 20 years of total sentence including remission, but by an order dated 28.4.2020 the matter was deferred for a period of 2 years. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the instant petition has been filed.

3. Mr. Vikram Punia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends that the order dated 28.4. 2020 is an illegal, arbitrary and whimsical as the petitioner has completed actual sentence of 15 years 3 months 1 day and has earned remission of 7 years 6 months 6 days as on 1.4.2020. He was taken into custody of 31.12.2004 and was in custody as an under trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the policy dated 12.4.2002 which was on force on the date of his conviction. It is submitted that as per policy, premature release of a life convict who has committed a heinous crime such as murder, murder while undergoing life sentence, murder with Dacoity, murder in connection with dowry, murder of a child under the age of 14 years, murder of a woman, murder after abduction or kidnapping etc. may be considered after completion of 14 years actual sentence including under trial with a proviso that the total period of such sentence including remission is not less then 20 years. It is submitted that as per the policy, the petitioner was fully eligible for premature release and his case could not have been deferred for a further period of 2 years.

4. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Dhillon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent state, argues that the petitioner cannot claim premature release as a matter of entitlement. The case of the petitioner was considered for premature release and by keeping in view the crime committed by the petitioner wherein one police officer had been killed, it was decided that his release would not be in public interest, as he was still young.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have perused the pleadings and the judgments relied upon.

6. The facts are not in dispute to the extent, that the petitioner has been convicted under FIRNo. 413 dated 30.12.2004 and has been awarded life imprisonment by the judgement and sentence dated 11.2.2006 or the fact that he has completed almost 15 years 3 months 1 day and has earned remission of 7 years 6 months 6 days as on 1.4.2020. The impugned order also acknowledges the fact that he has completed the said period but has dismissed the plea for premature release primarily on the ground that his release would not be in public interest as a pol