JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

Present criminal writ petition is filed by the petitioner who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life, seeking direction to the respondents for his premature release from custody as per policy dated 12.04.2002 framed by the Haryana Government regulating the premature release of prisoners. The petitioner is convicted under Sections 376(1)(g) and 302/34 of IPC, & sentenced to imprisonment for life, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide Judgment dated 02.12.2003 and order of sentence dated 06.12.2003 respectively, arising out of FIR No.264 dated 24.10.2001 registered at Police Station Sadar, Hansi.

2. Perusal of the record of the case shows that the case of the petitioner for premature release was considered by the State Level Committee on 02.02.2022. The State Level Committee held the petitioner not entitled to be extended the benefit of premature release and in agreement with the decision of State Level Committee, the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Jails Department, vide order dated 04.03.2022 (Annexure P-4), rejected the case of the petitioner for premature release.

3. Challenging the order (Annexure P-4), dated 04.03.2022 passed by respondent No.1 the present criminal writ petition is filed seeking quashing of said the order (Annexure P-4) & for premature release of the petitioner. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 04.03.2022 was passed without assigning any reason for the rejection of the case of the petitioner for premature release. It is submitted that the policy dated 12.04.2002 under which the case of the petitioner has been considered by the respondents, makes out a case for premature release of the petitioner, as it prescribes for grant of premature release once the convict in a heinous offence completes 20 years actual sentence and 25 years total sentence with remissions. While referring to the custody certificate of the petitioner (Annexure P-2) it is submitted that till 15.04.2022, the petitioner had undergone actual custody of more than 20 years and a total sentence including remissions of more than 25 years.

4. While rebutting the case of the petitioner it is argued on behalf of the respondents that the case of the petitioner was duly considered by the State Level Committee and after due deliberation, the petitioner was not found fit for premature release at present. The policy prescribes for consideration of the case of the petitioner which exercise has already been undertaken by the respondents. Placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Maru Ram vs. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147, it is contended that a sentence of imprisonment for life is imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period after conviction of the convicted person's natural life. It is stressed that even if the remissions earned have totalled upto 20 years, still the State Government may or may not release the prisoner and until such a release order remitting the remaining part of the life sentence is passed, the prisoner cannot claim his liberty.

5. Further, referring to the judgment dated 22.07.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Swami Shardhanand @ Murli Manohar Mishra vs State of Karnataka (SC) 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 772, it is argued that it is at the sole discretion of the Government to exercise the power conferred on it in accordance with law. A convict has no right to claim premature release, as life imprisonment means the whole life of a convict in jail. In support of this argument on behalf of the respondent reliance is further placed on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (CRL.) No.6467/2012 CRL.M.P. No.17082/2012 titled as State of U.P. Vs. Sanjay Kumar. In view of these submissions on behalf of the respondents it is contended that the present criminal writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

6. I h