Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Subhash @ Bhasha – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Harpreet Singh Brar, J.
The present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for premature release has been declined, in contravention of the policy dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P-2).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has undergone 15 years 03 Months 18 days of actual custody and a custody of 20 years 00 months 13 days including remission. According to the applicable policy i.e. policy dated 13.08.2008, the petitioner falls into Category 'B' and requires 14 years of actual custody and 20 years of total custody to be eligible for premature release. The State Level Committee was required to consider the case of the petitioner, in terms of the policy applicable at the time of his conviction, which would be the policy dated 13.08.2008, according to which the petitioner is eligible for premature release. However, the case of petitioner was rejected on the ground of involvement in other criminal offences and in vi
The court reaffirmed that prior involvement in criminal offenses cannot be grounds to deny premature release under applicable policies.
The court mandated fair application of premature release policies for convicts, emphasizing that arbitrary denials infringe upon fundamental rights and must be reasoned.
The exercise of executive power of clemency is a duty vested in the Authority for the welfare of the people, and the case of premature release of a life convict is governed by the policy/guidelines o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the policy prevailing at the time of conviction governs the grant of remissions, and the commission of jail offences should not be a sole grou....
The court mandated the reconsideration of a convict's premature release proposal, emphasizing rehabilitation, age, and new evidence over the initial decision to reject it based on the severity of the....
The court clarified that state policies for premature release must be applied equitably, implicating constitutional guarantees against arbitrary treatment.
Premature release is not an inherent right of a convict and is subject to the discretion of the State Government based on various factors including the conduct of the convict in jail and the nature o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
