322 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 15.01.2025 Sunil @ Kalla ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Varinder Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kirpal Singh Thakur, AAG, Haryana.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed praying for setting aside the impugned order, dated 06.08.2024, Annexure P-2, passed by respondent No.1, rejecting the premature release case of the petitioner. It is further prayed to issue directions to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for his premature release as he has undergone more than the requisite sentence required for consideration of his premature release.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was prosecuted in case FIR No.291, dated 25.08.2009, under Sections 302, 380 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector-5, District Gurugram. After conclusion of the trial, he was convicted for the offence under Sections 302, 380 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/-, by learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, on 24.05.2010. The petitioner filed appeal bearing CRA-D-781-DB-2010 before this Court, which was dismissed on 21.11.2018. He has submitted that the petitioner had filed an application for grant of premature release as per instructions issued by the Haryana Government, dated 11.08.2008. He has submitted that as per instructions, case of the petitioner is covered by Clause (b) of the policy, according to which case of a life convict can be considered after completion of 14 years of actual sentence including under trial period provided that the total undergone period of such sentence including remission is not less than 20 years. He submits that as the petitioner was eligible for his premature release in view of the Policy, dated 11.08.2008, his case was recommended for consideration of his premature release by the State. However, on consideration of his case, the respondent/State had rejected his case of premature release vide impugned order, dated 06.08.2024 on the ground that petitioner committed crime in a most cruel, ghastly and barbaric manner and in addition, he committed two jail offences and his conduct was not satisfactory. He submits that the view taken by the respondent/State in rejecting his prayer for premature release is totally illegal, unreasonable and hence unsustainable in the eyes of law. He submits that as per the terms and conditions of the Policy, dated 11.08.2008, the petitioner has already undergone more than the period of sentence required for consideration of his premature release as per the Policy. He, thus, submits that the conclusion arrived at by the respondent/State in holding that the petitioner had committed a heinous offence is in violation of the Policy, dated 11.08.2008, thus, he submits that the impugned order being unsustainable in the eyes of law deserves to be set aside and respondent/State be directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. He relies upon Raju Alias Rajesh vs. State of Haryana and others, in CRWP-2160-2024 decided on 11.03.2024, Lallan @ Pankaj vs. State of Haryana and others, in CRM-M-8450-2024 decided on 02.09.2024 and Braham Singh @ Neetu vs. State of Haryana and others, passed in CRWP-7818-2024 decided on 13.08.2024.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has drawn attention of this Court to the reply, dated 18.11.2024, filed by way of affidavit of Lakhbir Singh, Chief Probation Officer O/o the Director General of Prisons, Haryana on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. He has submitted that the petitioner committed murder of Vinita wife of Kamlesh by giving lathi blows and thereafter, he also committed theft of one mobile phone, two wrist watches and cash amount from her house and ultimately he was sentenced f