The court ruled that the parole period must be deducted from the total sentence, not from the actual sentence for premature release eligibility, reaffirming adherence to statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. CRM-W-556-2025 is preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking recalling/reviewing/modification of the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by this Court in CRWP-2705-2023 in view of the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 24.03.2025.

2. CRWP-11354-2024has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of order dated 30.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.1, vide which case of the petitioner for premature release has been rejected.

3. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was convicted by learned Sessions Court, Hoshiarpur vide judgment dated 11.08.2014 in the case stemming from FIR No.80 dated 10.08.2013 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal before this Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 03.10.2019. A Special Leave Petition was also moved by him before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2019.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for premature release under policy dated 08.07.1991. Subsequently, a criminal writ petition was moved before this Court seeking directions for release of the petitioner. The same was disposed of vide order dated 16.01.2024, whereby the official respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of two months. Aggrieved by the same, the State of Punjab moved a Special Leave Petition No.8076/2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the following order was passed on 24.03.2025:

1. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel appearing for the “petitioner-State of Punjab seeks leave to withdraw this special leave petition. He also seeks leave to approach the High Court with a re- view petition in view of the fact that certain relevant policies were not placed before the High Court.

2. Permission granted.

3. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty as prayed.

4. However, if the review petition is dismissed, the petitioner-State of Punjab shall be at liberty to challenge the parent order in a fresh special leave petition.”

5. Learned State counsel-applicant submits that the whole premise of the case of the petitioner is fallacious, as all four policies issued in the years 1991, 2011, 2013 & 2017, respectively, for premature release, applicable in the State of Punjab have the same prerequisites sentence and no amendment has been carried out in this regard. Therefore, the argument put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is required to be rejected as it cannot be said that a new policy has been formulated, since merely a clarification regarding interpretation of a pre-existing provision has been issued.

6. Earlier, the parole period was wrongly being subtracted from the total sentence (Total sentence= Actual undergone + Remission – Parole) by the competent authority, for the purposes of premature release. As per reply by way of affidavit dated 23.05.2025 of Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Jails, Punjab, it was subsequently realized that the same was based on incorrect interpretation of Section 3(3) of the Punjab Good Conduct of Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short ‘