JUDGMENT :

Panka J Jain, J. (Oral) - CRM-W-207-2024

The petitioner initially approached this Court seeking issuance of directions to the respondents to release him prematurely being covered by police decision dated 08.08.2011. During the pendency of the petition the competent authority vide order dated 29.12.2023 endorsed on 08.01.2024 rejected the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application seeking amendment of the writ petition. Both the respondents i.e. State as well as private respondent have pleaded no objection in view of the fact that the amendment is necessitated owing to subsequent events.

In view of above, application seeking amendment of the writ petition is allowed.

Registry is directed to number the amended petition.

Main case

1. By way of amended writ petition, the petitioner has incorporated challenge to the order dated 29.12.2023 placed on record as Annexure P-11. Petitioner was tried in FIR No.16 dated 01.02.2006 registered for offences punishable under Sections 302/34/120-B IPC at Police Station City Sri Muktsar Sahib. He was convicted having been found guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 28.01.2013.

2. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before this Court stands dismissed vide judgment dated 24.10.2017. As per the reply filed by way of affidavit of Varun Sharma, Superintendent, District Jail, Sri Muktsar Sahib dated 27.03.2023, the petitioner had undergone actual sentence of 10 years, 1 month & 14 days (without remission) and 18 years, 1 month & 14 days (with remission) till 11.08.2022.

3. Petitioner claims that his case is covered under the policy decision dated 08.08.2011 which was applicable at the time the petitioner was convicted i.e. 28.01.2013. It has been further claimed that despite the fact that the claim of the petitioner for premature release was fully covered under the said policy decision he was not released and the petitioner was constrained to seek justice by serving legal notice dated 28.02.2022 placed on record as Annexure P-3. The notice dated 28.02.2022 was replied by Senior Superintendent Central Jail, Bathinda whereby the petitioner was assured that the case of the petitioner shall be forwarded to the Govt, of Punjab once he completes 10 years of actual sentence and 14 years including remission. The claim of the petitioner has been finally rejected by the competent authority vide impugned order Annexure P-11 merely on the ground that his premature release is opposed by the Committee formed to consider the cases of premature release.

4. Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order submits that the same is in teeth of the policy decision taken by the State of Punjab. As per settled proposition of law once the State has formulated policy it cannot apply the same arbitrarily. It has been contended that the petitioner falls within column of the policy i.e. the convicts who have been imprisoned for life for offences for which death is one of punishments. In order to be covered under the said policy, petitioner was required to undergo actual imprisonment of 10 years and 14 years of imprisonment with remission. The petitioner having completed both is eligible to be considered for premature release.

5. Per contra learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC which is heinous in nature and he would fall within column 'B' and for that he is required to undergo actual imprisonment of 12 years.

6. Counsel for the victim has appeared and stated that the petitioner is a contract killer and if released prematurely he shall be a danger to peace and harmony of the public at large. It has been claimed that it is only for this reason that Deputy Commissioner of Police Dwarka, New Delhi vide communication dated 10.06.2020 has not recommended premature release of the petitioner.

7. I have heard counsel for the parties and have