Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
Pohlu @Polu Ram And Others – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana And Others – Respondent
CRWP No. 8232 of 2022 (O&M), CRWP No.5189 of 2023 (O&M), CRWP No.8889 of 2023 (O&M), CRWP No.4607 of 2023 (O&M), CRWP No.711 of 2024 (O&M), CRWP No.7000 of 2022 (O&M) and CRWP No. 428 of 2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 05-02-2024
JUDGMENT :
Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)
1. This common order shall dispose of all the above mentioned petitions as the issues for determination are similar in all cases.
2. The present petitions are filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C') praying for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reconsider and decide the petitioners' case for premature release.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. CRWP -8232- 2022 (Pohlu @Polu Ram): The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 27.07.2007 in FIR No. 328 dated 20.09.1995 registered under Sections 302, 120-B, 148, 149 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station City Kaithal and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/148 IPC. The petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 12 years, 10 months and 4 days and total sentence (including remission) of 16 years, 8 months and 18 days. The case of the petitioner is covered by Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002 which requires 14 years of actual imprisonment and 20 years of total imprisonment with remission for a case to be considered for pre-mature release. However, his request was denied by the jail authorities vide impugned order dated 14.10.2021 stating that the petitioner is a threat to the public safety and has not completed requisite sentence to be considered for pre-mature release.
CRWP- 5189-2023 (Rahul @ Rajiv):
The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 30.09.2010 in FIR No. 129 dated 15.02.2006 registered under Sections 302, 34, 120-B, 201, 202 of the IPC at Police Station City Gurgaon and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 16 years, 9 months and 4 days and total sentence (including remission) of 20 years 11 months and 26 days. The case of the petitioner is covered by Premature Release Policy dated 13.08.2008 which requires 14 years of actual imprisonment and 20 years of total imprisonment with remission for a case to be considered for pre-mature release. However, his request was deferred for two years from 30.09.2022 by the jail authorities vide impugned order dated 31.03.2023 stating that the petitioner was involved in eleven other criminal offences and has also committed jail offences. It was concluded that he is a hardened criminal with no potential of reformation.CRWP- 8889-2023 (Azad):
The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 30.09.2010 in FIR No. 129 dated 15.02.2006 registered under Sections 302, 34, 120-B, 201, 202 of the IPC at Police Station City Gurugram and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 16 years, 5 months and 14 days and total sentence (including remission) of 21 years 01 month and 5 days. The case of the petitioner is covered by Premature Release Policy dated 13.08.2008 which requires 16 years of actual imprisonment and 20 years of total imprisonment with remission for a case to be considered for pre-mature release. However, his request was denied by the jail authorities vide impugned order dated 07.08.2023 stating that the petitioner was involved in five other criminal offences and has committed a heinous crime.CRWP- 4607-2023 (Rajat):
The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 13.07.2009 in FIR No. 52 dated 15.01.2006 registered under Sections 302, 34, 120-B of the IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station City Gurugaon and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 15 years, 8 months and 10 days and total sentence (including remission) of 21 years 01 month and 29 days. The case of the petitioner is covered by Premature Release Policy dated 13.08.2008 which requires 14 years of actual imprisonment and 20 years of total imprisonment with remission for a case to be considered for pre-mature release. However, his request was deferred for two years from 30.09.2022
The court mandated fair application of premature release policies for convicts, emphasizing that arbitrary denials infringe upon fundamental rights and must be reasoned.
The court mandated the reconsideration of a convict's premature release proposal, emphasizing rehabilitation, age, and new evidence over the initial decision to reject it based on the severity of the....
The exercise of executive power of clemency is a duty vested in the Authority for the welfare of the people, and the case of premature release of a life convict is governed by the policy/guidelines o....
The court reaffirmed that prior involvement in criminal offenses cannot be grounds to deny premature release under applicable policies.
The court directed that prisoners eligible under state policy for premature release must be evaluated fairly, without undue reliance on singular opinions, safeguarding against arbitrary treatment.
(1) Remission policy prevailing on the date of conviction, is to be applied in a given case, and if a more liberal policy exists on the day of consideration, then latter would apply.(2) Blanket exclu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
