Premature release criteria must consider both the convict's compliance with sentencing policies and their personal circumstances, including health and age, ensuring a holistic approach in decision-making.

JUDGMENT :

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making prayer for setting aside the order dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure P-3), passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby, the case of the petitioner for premature release, as per the policy dated 08.07.1991 (Annexure P-2), had been declined. He has also made prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondents to release him on the ground that as per conditions of the aforementioned policy, he has already undergone his sentence.

2. As submitted in the petition, the petitioner had been held guilty and convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘IPC’), vide judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 24.05.2008, passed in case arising out of FIR No. 147 dated 19.07.2006, registered under Sections 302 , 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Phillaur, Jalandhar and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The petitioner had filed an appeal before this Court against his conviction, which had been dismissed, vide judgment dated 23.01.2013 passed in CRA-D-504-DB-2008

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as per custody certificate dated 25.07.2025, the petitioner had undergone the actual sentence of 17 years, 08 months and 12 days and after including the remission, he had undergone sentence of 25 years, 08 month and 12 days. The petitioner had applied for grant of benefit of pre-mature release in view of policy dated 08.07.1991. However, his prayer has been declined on the basis of the report of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, which alone could not be a ground for rejecting the prayer as made by the petitioner. It is further argued that while passing the impugned order, respondent No. 1 was swayed by the report given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and did not consider the requirements necessary for arriving at this conclusion.

4. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that even the Presiding Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, while giving his report, did not take into account the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India : (2000) 2 SCC 595 . The further argument as raised by him is that the reason for rejection of the prayer of the petitioner on the basis of report submitted by the Presiding Judge was perfunctorily relied upon, though the same demonstrated a casual opinion. It is also submitted that over emphasis was given to the opinion of the Presiding Judge, thereby making the impugned order unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is also argued that the petitioner is aged about 62 years and is suffering from age related health problems. Therefore, it is urged that the present petition deserves to be allowed. To fortify his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the latest judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited as Rajo alias Rajwa alias Rajendra Mandal vs. State of Bihar and others : 2023 SCC Online 1068, Satish @ Sabbe vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh : 2023 SCC (Criminal) 626, Rashidul Jafar @ Chota vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another : 2022 (4) RCR (Criminal) 702.

5. Reply along with custody certificate has been filed by the respondent-State. It is argued by learned State counsel that the petitioner had been convicted for commission of a heinous crime, hence, his application fo