JUDGMENT :

Manisha Batra, J.

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 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-2), passed by the respondent No. 1-Additional Chief Secretary, Govt, of Haryana, Jail Department, whereby the case of the petitioner for premature release, as per the policy dated 08.08.2000 (Annexure P-1) as issued by the Govt, of Haryana, had been rejected with an observation that the same will be reconsidered after one year after evaluating his conduct. He has also made prayer for issuance of directions to the respondents to release him on interim bail till the final decision is taken by the competent authority with regard to premature release of the petitioner.

2. As submitted in the petition, the petitioner had been held guilty and convicted for commission of offecnces punishable under Sections 302, 148, 149 of IPC, vide judgment of conviction 2009 and order on quantum of sentence dated 20.02.2022, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad in case arising out of FIR No. 661 dated 10.09.1999, registered under Sections 302, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Central Faridabad, District Faridabad and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Admittedly, he had filed an appeal against his conviction, which had been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 23.04.2013 passed in CRA-D-186-DB-2002.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner had been convicted on 20.02.2002 and at that time, policy dated 08.08.2000 was applicable with regard to premature release of the convicts. It is further submitted that as per Clause (b) of the said policy, the petitioner was required to undergo actual sentence of 10 years and total sentence of 14 years including remissions for his premature release. However, despite having undergone actual sentence of 11 years, 10 months and 04 days and total sentence of 15 years, 08 months and 16 days, as is evident from the impugned order itself, the case of the petitioner for his premature release has been rejected and deferred for a period of one year for its reconsideration. Respondent No. 1, while passing the impugned order, has relied upon the recommendation of the State Level Committee which is in fact based on the report received from the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Faridabad as per Section 432(2) of Cr.P.C., wherein it was observed that keeping in view the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case, the petitioner does not deserve premature release. However, respondent No. 1 has ignored the fact that the case of the petitioner was fully covered under the policy issued by the Govt, of Haryana on 08.08.2000 and, therefore, he deserves to be extended benefit of premature release, especially in view of the fact that his case for premature release had been recommended by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 1 also ignored the fact that the report of Additional Sessions Judge 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad alone 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, while giving his report, did not take into account the factors 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 and the recomme