IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that adherence to the Premature Release Policy is mandatory, and past offenses cannot unjustly impede eligibility for release if the requisite sentence has been served.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been invoked by the petitioner seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 11.12.2023 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No. 1 vide which the prayer for grant of premature release has been rejected and passed an order that the petitioner shall remain in jail till his last breath.

2. Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate for the petitioner has inter-alia submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered under para 2 (aa) (iv) of the Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002 (Annexure P-3). According to the said provision, the petitioner has to undergo 20 years of actual sentence and 25 years of total sentence with remission whereas, in the present case the petitioner has undergone more than 24 years of actual imprisonment and 29 years of total imprisonment including remission till date.

3. It is asserted that vide communication No. 11348, dated 29.03.2017 (Annexure P-4), respondent No. 3 has returned the case of the petitioner to respondent No. 2 with a direction to send his premature release case as and when he will complete his requisite sentence as per para 2 (aa) (iv). Thus, again after completion of requisite sentence as per para 2 (aa) (iv), the case of the petitioner for premature release was forwarded to the authorities but the same was deferred for two years vide order dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure P-5) on the ground that the life convict is a habitual offender and has also remained involved in five other serious criminal offences such as murder, decoity and under Arms Act etc and he does not deserve any concession at this stage from the Government.

4. The afore-said order dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure P-5) was challenged before this Court by way of criminal writ petition CRWP No. 3822 of 2021 and the same was disposed off vide order dated 21.07.2022 (Annexure P6) with a direction to respondent No. 2- Director General of Prison, Haryana to decide the case of the petitioner in terms of the order dated 10.02.2022 passed by the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 439 of 2021 titled as “Sharafat Ali Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another” within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A specific observation was made that the petitioner has undergone the actual sentence of more than 20 years and in total more than 25 years including remission earned by him as per clause 2(aa) of the Policy of the Haryana Government dated 12.04.2002, the case of the petitioner is fully covered with the policy.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the case of the petitioner for premature release was again rejected by the authorities vide order dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure P-7) on the same ground that he remained involved in five other criminal offences meaning thereby, he is a history sheeter and has no scope for any kind of reformation and on this ground the case of the petitioner was again deferred for one year.

6. The petitioner’s case was reconsidered again and was rejected vide order dated 11.12.2023 (Annexure P-8) by the State level committee on the same ground. However, while rejecting the case of the petitioner it has been observed that he will remain inside the jail till his last breath.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002 (Annexure P-3) and submitted that after 2002, no other case has been registered against the petitioner. Hence, the ground for rejection that he is involved in five other serious criminal offences cannot be taken into consideration by the State level committee as those offences pertain to 20 years ago. Further more, the requisite sentence of 20 years actual sentence and 25 years of total sentence including remission has already been undergone by the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the order d