JUDGMENT :

Gurbir Singh, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Criminal Writ Petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of direction to the respondents to initiate and consider the premature release case of the petitioner as he has already undergone more than the sentence period required for considering his case for grant of premature release.

2. Admittedly, petitioner and another co-accused namely Ravdeep Kaur were convicted vide judgment dated 28/30.03.2012, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, in case FIR No.321 dated 14.10.2005, under Section 302/34/109/115/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, which was ordered to be extended to their full life, and also to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- each. At present, the petitioner is lodged at Central Jail, Patiala. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal before this Court bearing No.CRA-D-995-DB-2012, which is still pending before this Court for adjudication.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has already undergone more than the sentence required to be undergone for considering his case for premature release. In this regard, it has been submitted that the Punjab Government has issued instructions dated 08.08.2011 (Annexure P-1) regarding premature release of 'life convicts' while exercising powers under Sections 432, 433 and 433-A Cr.P.C. and Article 161 of the Constitution of India, wherein it is provided that case of life convict could be considered after undergoing 10 years of actual sentence and 14 years with remission. It has further been submitted that the petitioner repeatedly requested the jail authorities to initiate his case for premature release but when his request was not acceded to, he sent legal notice dated 03.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) to the jail authorities through an Advocate. Reply to the said legal notice dated 17.11.2023 (Annexure P-3) was sent by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, wherein it was conveyed that the petitioner was not eligible for premature release as per the Punjab Government Policy dated 08.07.1991. However, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that a number of convicts have already been released by the concerned Authorities on the basis of Government Policies but case of the petitioner has not even been considered till date. In addition to this, even case of co-convict Ravdeep Kaur has been considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and she was directed to be released on interim bail till final decision is taken by the Authorities on the issue of her premature release, subject to final outcome of her appeal. So, case of the petitioner be also considered for pre-mature release as he his actual undergone period comes to more than 15 years (as undertrial and after conviction), even if remission period of 03 years and about 04 months is excluded.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that as per the premature release policy of the Government of Punjab, there is no provision to grant the benefit of premature release for such prisoners, where the Court has awarded punishment till death or imprisonment till natural life and therefore, premature release case of the petitioner cannot be initiated. Learned State counsel has also submitted that due to pendency of appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence, which is to be considered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this court, present petition is not maintainable and the same deserves dismissal. However, he has fairly admitted that co-convict of the petitioner was released on interim bail vide order dated 03.10.2023, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Duty), Patiala.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the part