The court mandated fair application of premature release policies for convicts, emphasizing that arbitrary denials infringe upon fundamental rights and must be reasoned.

JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

1. Prayer in this criminal writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting-aside the order dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No. 1, vide which the case of the petitioner for premature release has been rejected and the same has been deferred to be reconsidered after a period of two years. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to release the petitioner as per the pre-mature policy dated 12.04.2002 (Annexure P-2) and to stay the operation of the order dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P-6), during the pendency of the present writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner has earlier approached this Court by way of filing a petition i.e. CRWP No. 8171 of 2024, seeking the aforesaid relief and the Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said petition on 24.09.2024, with liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation before the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, and thereafter, the petitioner filed a detailed representation dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-5), however, vide impugned order dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P-6), respondent No. 1 rejected the case of the petitioner for premature release by cutting and pasting the earlier order and the direction issued by this Court has not been followed, in which this Court has specifically directed respondent No. 1 to pass a speaking order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was convicted and was awarded life imprisonment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat on 10.01.2008 (Annexure P-1) and his case is covered by the Policy dated 12.04.2002 (Annexure P-2) and in the Policy there is no provision with regard to the deferment of the case of a convict and the petitioner’s case has been deferred on account of the fact that he is involved in 12 cases and out of those cases, he has already been acquitted in 08 cases and in 03 other cases, he is on bail and as such, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Pohlu @ Polu Ram vs. State of Haryana and others, CRWP No. 8232 of 2022 , decided on 05.02.2024, as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Jagdish , AIR 2010 SC 1690 .

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has placed on record reply by way of affidavit of Lakhbir Singh, Chief Probation Officer, office of Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Sector 14, Panchkula, which is taken on record and justifies the deferment of case of the petitioner by submitting that he is an accused of serious offence, however, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner fulfills the conditions mentioned in the Policy (Annexure P-2), which is applicable in the case of the petitioner.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, this Court is of the opinion that the policy instituted by the State for premature release is equally applicable to all convicts and directly impacts their fundamental rights as enshrined under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Once eligible to be considered for premature release according to the applicable policy, the State cannot deny him this concession without recording due reasons for the same. The State is duty bound to act fairly and to proceed according to the policy formulated by it in a manner that does not discriminate between similarly situated persons in absence of an intelligible differentia.