In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana

AT CHANDIGARH

CRWP-1779-2019 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 29.7.2022

Ranjit Singh

……..… Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

…..... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

Present:-

Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab and

Mr. Tanvir Joshi, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Rahul Mohan, DAG, Haryana and

Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, DAG, Haryana.

* * * * *

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.

1.

The petitioner Ranjit Singh, life convict, has approached this Court seeking

issuance of direction/mandamus for releasing him prematurely on the basis

of policy dated 8.7.1991 (Annexure P-12) of Government of Punjab, upon

completion of 10 years of actual sentence and 14 years of total sentence.

2.

The undisputed facts are that the petitioner stands convicted for having

committed offences under Section 364 IPC and 302 IPC in a case arising out

of FIR No. 47 dated 19.3.1997 under Sections 364, 302 read with Section 34

IPC, lodged at Police Station Kotwali, District Sangrur. He alongwith co-

accused Bahadur Singh was sentenced vide judgment dated 7.1.2002 passed

by learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur (Annexure P-1) as under :-

KAMAL KUMAR

2022.08.02 12:30

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

( 2 )

CRWP-1779-2019 (O&M)

Under Section 302 read

with Section 34 IPC

Life imprisonment

Under Section 364 IPC

Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of

Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to

further undergo imprisonment for six months.

3.

There was no specific order as regards concurrent running of sentences in

respect of both the offences.

4.

The petitioner challanged his conviction by way of filing an appeal in this

Court i.e. Criminal Appeal No.94-DB of 2002 but the same was dismissed

by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 13.8.2010

(Annexure P-2) wherein the conviction as well as sentence was upheld. The

judgment of this Court i.e. judgment dated 13.8.2010 (Annexure P-2) was

challenged in the Supreme Court but was upheld vide judgment dated

25.2.2015 (Annexure P-3).

5.

The petitioner had earlier filed a Civil Writ Petition in this Court i.e. CWP

No. 7277 of 2018 seeking his pre-mature release inter-alia on the ground

that sentences in respect of both the offences were to run concurrently in

view of law laid down in Muthuramalingam vs. State represented by

Inspector of Police 2016 (3) RCR(Criminal) 827, and that as such, he had

already completed undergone sentence. However, the petition was

dismissed by this Court vide judgement date 3.12.2018 (Annexure P-4).

6.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner issued a notice dated

17.1.2019 (Annexure P-5), to respondents no. 2 and 3, wherein while

drawing the attention of the jail authorities to various provisions of Punjab

Jail Manual, a claim was made that he was entitled to the benefit of setting-

KAMAL KUMAR

2022.08.02 12:30

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

( 3 )

CRWP-1779-2019 (O&M)

off the undertrial period separately in respect of both the offences i.e.

offences under Sections 364 and 302 IPC, but the said relief was not

extended. Vide letter dated 7.3.2019 (Annexure P-6), in response to an

application submitted by the petititoner under RTI, he was informed that the

sentence of 7 years in respect of offence under Section 364 IPC had expired

on 6.3.2003 and that the life sentence had commenced w.e.f. 6.3.2003

onwards and that the undertrial period w.e.f. 31.3.1997 to 6.1.2002 had been

taken into consideration and had been set off as against the sentence of 7

years imposed for offence under Section 364 IPC and not towards the life

sentence. It is further the case of the petitioner that the jail authorities vide

their letter dated 13.3.2019 (Annexure P-7) sent a reply to the notice

(Annexure P-5) wherein he was informed that the undertrial period