246 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No.1163 of 2024 Date of decision : 19.09.2025 Rahish Khan @ Harish @ Sanjay ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***

Present: Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Randeep Singh Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Present petition has been filed praying for setting aside the order dated 11.01.2024 (wrongly mentioned as 18.01.2024 in the prayer clause) vide which the premature release case of the petitioner was wrongly rejected by the respondents State Level Committee as it amounts to Double Jeopardy and wrong interpretation of the provisions of Policy regarding premature release of the petitioner dated 12.04.2002 by passing illegal, arbitrary and sisyphean order contending that the petitioner does not deserve any concession of premature release policy of Government at the present stage. Further prayer has been made for release of the petitioner on interim bail or directing the official respondents to grant parole to the petitioner till the final decision of the preset case.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was prosecuted in FIR No.398, dated 23.12.2003, under Sections 364-A & 302 of IPC, registered at Police Station Baldev Nagar, District Ambala. However, on conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sections 364-A and 302 IPC by learned Sessions Judge, Ambala vide order dated 28.04.2006. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing an appeal bearing CRA-D-647-DB-2006, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 09.11.2011. After completion of 20 years of actual sentence and 25 years of total sentence on 31.12.2023, the case of premature release of the petitioner was put up before the State Level Committee and the same was denied. Now the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for his premature release.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is covered under para No.2(a)(vii) of the policy dated 12.04.2002 (convicts who have been imprisoned for life having committed a heinous crime-Murder of a child under the age of 14 years) and as per the policy, the case of the petitioner was required to be considered by Jail Superintendent, after completion of 14 years of actual sentence and 20 years total sentence with remissions. He has submitted that the Superintendent, District Jail, Kurukshetra forwarded the case of the petitioner to the State Level Committee for consideration, however the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 11.01.2024 without providing any cogent and reasonable explanation to the same. Further, it has been ordered that case of the petitioner for premature release will be re- considered after two years from the date of order. 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 12.04.2002, the petitioner has already undergone more than the period of sentence required for consideration of his premature release. He, thus, submits that the conclusion arrived at by the respondent/State holding that the petitioner had committed the heinous offence under clause 2(aa)(ii) which is in violation of the Policy, dated 12.04.2002, thus, he submits that the impugned order being unsustainable in the eyes of law deserves to be set aside and now, period of six months has already been passed. Thus, the respondent/State be directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan vs. State of (NC