The exercise of executive power of clemency is a duty vested in the Authority for the welfare of the people, and the case of premature release of a life convict is governed by the policy/guidelines of the Government and the gravity of the offence(s) of the accused.

JUDGMENT

Sant Parkash, J. - The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the respondents to release the petitioner prematurely in view of the Govt. Policy dated 12.04.2002 (Annexure P-2) and quashing of order dated 19.10.2021 (Annexure P-5) whereby the case of the petitioner for his premature release has been deferred.

2. The petitioner along with other co-accused was arrested in case FIR No. 156 dated 03.12.1999 under Sections 302, 323, 324, 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Nathusari Chopta. The petitioner was tried for the aforesaid offences and after completion oftrial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Sirsa vide order dated 17.05.2002.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the aforesaid judgment by filing appeal CRA-D-436-DB-2002 which was also dismissed vide order dated 01.11.2011.

4. The petition has been opposed by the respondents/State in terms of reply filed by way of affidavit of Jagjit Singh, Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana, O/o the Director General of Prisons, Haryana

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of more than 10 years and total sentence of 14 years with remissions and the case of the petitioner falls under the category 2(b) of the Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002 of the Haryana Government. The respondents vide impugned order dated 19.10.2021 (Annexure P-5) have deferred the case of premature release of the petitioner for two years without citing any reason. Further detention of the petitioner is against the said Govt. policy and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is fulfilling all the conditions for grant of pre-mature release as per the Govt. Instructions (Annexure P-2) and the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith.

6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel reiterating the contents of reply has submitted that the petitioner is not a law abiding person and remained involved in criminal offences repeatedly. Thepetitioner cannot claim premature release as a matter of right and it is only a concession given by the State Government after considering the behaviour of the convict inside the jail, gravity, nature of offence, manner and circumstances under which the crime was committed. In support of his arguments learned Counsel for the State has placed reliance on judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Mam Ram Vs. Union of India' AIR 1980 SC 2147, decided on 11.11.1980 ; 'Swami Shardhanand @ Murli Manohar Mishra Vs. State of Karnataka (SC) 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 772; W.P. (Crl.) No.48 of 2014 Union of India Vs. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors. and SLP (Crl) No. 6467 of 2012 Crl. M.P. No. 17082 of 2012 titled State of U.P. Vs. Sanjay Kumar.

7. Learned State Counsel has further submitted that on completion of 12 years, 4 months and 7 days actual sentence and 14 years, 4 months and 28 days total sentence as on 30.06.2021, the case of premature release of the petitioner was placed before the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 12.08.2021 for consideration. After considering the matter, the State Level Committee did not recommend the case of the convict for premature release keeping in view the nature of crime committed by the life convict as well as his involvement in three other grave criminal offences and his case for premature release was deferred for one year.

8. It has been mentioned in the premature release policy itself that no convict has fundamental right of remission or shortening of sentence and the State Government, in exercise of its discretionarypower of remission is to consider each case individualy keeping in view all the relevant factors. The case for premature release of the petitioner will be re-cons