The main legal point established in the judgment is that the pendency of an appeal does not bar the consideration of a premature release case, and the State's policy for premature release should be applied. Additionally, a jail offence committed during custody should not be a reason to withhold a premature release case.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

By way of this Criminal Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of direction to the respondents to grant her premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution of India as per policy of the State, as petitioner has already completed the requisite period of sentence for grant of premature release, having served more than 16.5 years of actual custody (now more than 17 years).

2. Admittedly, petitioner and one Manjeet Singh were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC in a case arising out of FIR No. 321 dated 14.10.2005, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, vide judgment dated 28.03.2012 by the Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. Vide separate order dated 30.03.2012 (Annexure P1), petitioner as well as co-convict were sentenced to ‘undergo imprisonment for life, which would extend to their full life’ and to pay fine of ? 50,000/- each with default sentence for committing the said offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC. Criminal Appeal No. CRA-525-DB-2012 against the aforesaid conviction and sentence is pending before a Division Bench of this Court for adjudication.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER :

3. (i) Contention of ld. counsel is that petitioner has already undergone more than double the requisite actual custody period for premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, as per the policies for premature release framed by the State of Punjab.

(ii) Ld. Counsel contends that Government is competent to frame policy for exercising the constitutional power under Article 72/161 of the Constitution of India for premature release, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Maru Ram Vs. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147; and that keeping in view the said judgment, the State of Punjab issued a policy dated 08.07.1991 (Annexure P2). As per this policy, petitioner being a female was required to undergo 8 years actual imprisonment and 12 years imprisonment including remission for the purpose of premature release. Subsequently, another policy was issued on 08.08.2011 (Annexure P3), as per which also, petitioner being a female was required to undergo 8 years actual imprisonment and 12 years imprisonment including remission. Ld. counsel contends that case of the petitioner falls under Column ‘C’ of the Schedule given in paragraph 3 of the said policy dated 08.08.2011. Said policy has been modified on 04.04.2013 and then again amended on 14.12.2017 and in both of them, the actual sentence required to be undergone by the petitioner being a female is 8 years actual imprisonment and 12 years total sentence including remission. Despite the said clear cut policy framed by the Punjab Government for grant of premature release, the State Government has failed to act upon the same. Petitioner made representation (Annexure P6) to various authorities, but her case has not been considered on the ground that she is a life convict.

(iii) Ld. counsel contends further that case of the petitioner for premature release is required to be considered in the light of the policy (Annexure P3) and the subsequent policies (Annexure P4 & P5). Ld. counsel has referred to State of Haryana Vs. Jagdish, 2010(3) JT 341, to contend that in case a liberal policy prevails on the date of consideration of the case of the lifer for premature relief, he/she should be given benefit of relief thereof.

(iv) It is contended further that even if the order of ld. Sessions Court is taken into consideration to keep the convict behind bars for rest of the life, there is no bar for constitutional authority to exercise power under Article 161 of the Constitution of India as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of UP Vs. Sanjay Kumar, 2012 (8) SCC 537.

(v) Ld. counsel has further referred to Union of India Vs. V. Sriharan @ Murugan and others, 20