Authorities must provide clear reasoning in decisions affecting personal liberty to prevent arbitrary action, aligning with established policies for premature release.

JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. Petitioner was convicted by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahar, under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC and was awarded sentence to undergo Life Imprisonment, in Sessions Case No.66 of 1998, emanating from FIR No.92, dated 16.10.1997, under Sections 302 , 392, 397 of , registered at Police Station Nawanshahar, Punjab. The appeal filed by the Petitioner against his above-mentioned conviction and sentence, before this Court bearing Criminal Appeal No.439-DB of 1999, was dismissed vide Judgment dated 28.08.2008.

2. The present Criminal Writ Petition under articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent – authorities for grant of premature release in view of notification dated 08.07.1991 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Government of Punjab and the Pre-Mature Release Policy, 2017 dated 14.12.2017 (Annexure P-4) on ground of the petitioner having undergone total sentence of 17 years 7 months 28 days (including parole) and 25 years 7 months 28 days (including remissions) till 12.03.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner’s claim for pre-mature release falls squarely within the ambit and operation of notification dated 08.07.1991 (Annexure P-3) and the Pre-Mature Release Policy, 2017 dated 14.12.2017 (Annexure P-4) promulgated by the Government of Punjab—It is further contended that the impugned orders vide which the prayer for pre-mature release has been denied, is fundamentally flawed for being sans any reasoning for such denial. Learned counsel has asserted that the respondent-authorities have failed to discharge their duty by not undertaking a due and proper consideration of the material facts and relevant evidence presented in support of the petitioner’s claim, thereby rendering the impugned orders as unsustainable in the eyes of law. On these grounds, the release of petitioner has been entreated for.

4. Learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the reply dated 07.07.2025 filed on behalf of the State, has submitted that the case of petitioner for premature release was forwarded to District Magistrate, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, vide letter No.3346 dated 27.05.2022. The same was recommended by District Magistrate, on 24.08.2022, where after, the same was sent to office of Additional Director General of Police (Prisons) on 31.08.2022. The case was returned by ADGP (Prisons) on 12.09.2022 for want of copy of Judgment passed against the petitioner. The case of petitioner was again sent to ADGP (Prisons) on 26.10.2022 with copy of said Judgment. But the case was again returned by ADGP (Prisons) on 02.11.2022 with a direction to get the opinion of Presiding Judge. Then the case of petitioner was again sent to ADGP (Prisons) on 02.02.2023. But as the case of petitioner was not covered under section 432 of the Cr.P.C., the ADGP (Prisons) again returned the case on 16.02.2023 for want of copy of Judgment passed by Sessions Court. Thereafter, the case of petitioner was again sent to ADGP (Prisons) on 16.05.2023, but was again sent back by ADGP (Prisons) on 01.06.2023 while seeking opinion report of the Presiding Judge. The case of petitioner was again sent on 31.07.2023 with requisite documents to the ADGP (Prisons). Thereafter, the case of petitioner was finally sent by the ADGP (Prisons) Punjab to the Government of Punjab on 08.12.2023 for consideration. It is further submitted that the case of petitioner seeking premature release from prison is finally stated to have been considered and rejected under section 432 of Cr.P.C. (