278 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.04.2025 Subhash @ Bhasha ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mrs. Manju Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

***

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (ORAL)

1. The present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for premature release has been declined, in contravention of the policy dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P-2).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has undergone 15 years 03 Months 18 days of actual custody and a custody of 20 years 00 months 13 days including remission. According to the applicable policy i.e. policy dated 13.08.2008, the petitioner falls into Category ‘B’ and requires 14 years of actual custody and 20 years of total custody to be eligible for premature release. The State Level Committee was required to consider the case of the petitioner, in terms of the policy applicable at the time of his conviction, which would be the policy dated 13.08.2008, according to which the petitioner is eligible for premature release. However, the case of petitioner was rejected on the ground of involvement in other criminal offences and in view of that the same has been deferred by one year. Denying the concession of premature release to a convict citing nature of the offence committed by him would defeat the purpose of the policy. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Jagdish, AIR 2010 SC 1690. Further, a co-ordinate bench of this Hon’ble court in Subash vs. Haryana 1994(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 489; and Lila Singh vs. State of Punjab 1988(1 R.C.R. (Criminal) 28 has held that involvement in other offences would not be a ground to deny the concession of premature release.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel could not controvert the fact that the case of the petitioner was required to be considered under the policy which was applicable at the time of his conviction i.e. policy dated 13.08.2008 or that his case was rejected on the above mentioned grounds and deferred by one year vide impugned order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-1).

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.09.2010 in the case stemming from FIR No.287 dated 22.07.2008 registered under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of Arms Act at Police Station City Hansi, District Hisar. The State level committee declined the premature release case of petitioner vide order dated 06.08.2024 by stating that the petitioner is involved in 9 other criminal offences, and being convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment his conduct is required to be further evaluate. In this regard, Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Subhash v. State of Haryana 1994(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 489 has held that involvement in other offences would not be a ground to deny the concession of premature release. Speaking through Justice V.K. Jhanji, the following was observed:

“4. It has been held in Lila Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988(1) RCR 28 that reasoning given in the order declining premature release to the petitioner-convict that he had committed jail offences and his release will prove hazardous to peace and tranquillity in the locality are no legal reasons to decline premature release. The reasoning was on the basis that the convict has already undergone imprisonment for committing jail offences and there is no materia