JUDGMENT :

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

The prayer in the present Criminal Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for the issuance of directions to the respondents to release the petitioner prematurely as per the Policy dated 08.07.1991 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Government of Punjab with a further prayer for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the petitioner on interim parole during the pendency of this petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was involved in FIR No.150 dated 01.09.2007 under Sections 302/307/506/148/149 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act, P.S. Ajnala, District Amritsar. He was tried convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated 14.01.2012.

Criminal Appeal No.D-205-SB-2012 was filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction which was dismissed by this Court vide Judgment dated 17.10.2014.

An SLP came to be filed against the judgment of this Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2018.

3. As the petitioner assumed that he had undergone 10 years of actual imprisonment which included the period of parole and 14 years of total actual sentence with remissions for offences falling under Clause 'C' of Para 1(1) of the Government Policy dated 08.07.1991, he applied for premature release but his case was not processed by the Jail authorities. A legal notice was sent to respondent Nos.3 and 4 for considering the case of the petitioner for the grant of premature release. However, no action has been taken till date.

4. A co-accused of the petitioner approached this Court vide CRWP No.2559 of 2022 titled as 'Avtar Singh @ Malli Vs. State of Punjab and others'. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.03.2022 wherein directions were issued to respondent No.3 to consider and decide the case of the petitioner within a period of two months. In pursuance to the order of this Court, the case of Avtar Singh @ Malli was considered and he was found to be eligible for premature release in terms of the Policy of Premature Release vide order dated 01.07.2022.

5. As the case of the petitioner was not processed for grant of premature release, the instant petition has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that despite the petitioner fulfilling the conditions for premature release in accordance with the policy set down by the Government of Punjab dated 08.08.2011 (Annexure R-2) and he being entitled to be released from prison, he was still languishing in Jail and as such, his further incarceration was in violation of his rights as well as his right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Parole, was a form of legal custody and imprisonment and thus, the same ought to be counted towards actual imprisonment of the convict. However, it could be deducted from his total actual sentence which includes the periods of remission. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the cases of Maru Ram Vs. Union of India,1981 (1) SCC 207, Faquir Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another, 1988(1) RCR (Crl) 558, Partap Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1995(3) RCR (Crl) 466, Jiwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others, 1996(1) CLJ (Criminal) 309 and Sant Ram & others Vs. The State of Haryana & another, 2010(1) RCR (Crl.) 546.

The judgments in Avtar Singh Vs. State of Haryana & another, 2002AIR (SC) 1109, Rohan Dhungat Etc. Vs. The State of Goa & others etc., 2023 AIR (Supreme Court) 265 and Anil Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & others, 2023(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 486 were per incuriam inasmuch as none of the judgments considered the decision in Maru Ram's case (supra).

Therefore, in terms of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SundeepKumarBafnaVs.StateofMaharashtra&another3 2014(16)SCC 623, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & others, 2017(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 1009 and Enforcement Directorate, Government of India Vs. Kap