280 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-3005-2024 DECIDED ON: 02.07.2025 MICKY MIAN @ MONU .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Swarn Sandhir, Legal Aid counsel for the petitioner Mr. Baljinder Singh Virk, Senior DAG Haryana SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned Order dated 04.03.2022 (Annexure P-1) conveyed through letter dated 14.03.2022 whereby premature release case of the petitioner has been rejected and for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant premature release to the petitioner under clause (b) of the Haryana Government Policy dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P-2) as the petitioner was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and has already undergone sentence of 27 years 0 months 03 days (as on 10.02.2024) as per certificate issued by Superintendent of Prison, Faridabad dated

10.02.2024 (Annexure P-3).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, vide judgment dated 07.04.2008, in FIR No. 546 dated 16.09.1999, registered under Sections 458, 459, 460, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sadar, Gurugram.

3. It is further submitted that the State of Haryana has issued a policy dated 13.08.2008 pertaining to the premature release of life convicts, wherein as per Clause (b) of the said policy, cases of life convicts may be considered for premature release upon completion of 14 years of actual sentence, including the period spent in custody as undertrial, provided the offence does not fall within the category of exceptions outlined in the policy. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s request for premature release was duly forwarded through respondent No.2 and placed before the State Level Committee. However, the same was rejected vide letter dated 14.03.2022 (Annexure P-1), without proper appreciation of the petitioner's eligibility under the policy.

5. It is further contended that the petitioner has undergone an actual sentence of 27 years and 3 days, which significantly exceeds the minimum requirement of 14 years as laid down under Clause (b) of the Haryana Government policy dated 13.08.2008. The relevant portion of the clause reads as under:

"(b) Convicts who have been imprisoned for life having committed any crime which is defined in IPC and/or NDPS Act as punishable with death sentence.

Their case for premature release may be considered after completion of 14 years actual sentence including undertrial period, provided that total period of such sentence including remissions is not less than 20 years."

6. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of an affidavit of Jagjit Singh, Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana, which is taken on record.

7. At the very outset, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer made in the instant petition stating that the petitioner cannot claim the premature release as a matter of right unless the State Government commutes the sentence of life convict through written order under the appropriate law. Rather it is only a concession given by the State Government after considering the behaviour of the convict inside the Jail, gravity, nature of offence, manner and circumstances under which the crime was committed.

8. It is also argued that the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 02.02.2022 duly considered the case of the petitioner and observed that the petitioner has committed crime in a gruesome and brutal manner apart from being involved in 21 other serious criminal offences. Therefore, giving the concession of premature release will lead to misuse of his freedom and may lead to injustice.

9. Heard, learned counsel for respective parties at length.

10. This Court is fully conscious of the settled legal