The term 'such as' in premature release policies defining brutal or heinous crimes is illustrative, not exhaustive. Courts evaluate whether a murder exhibits brutality by considering the specific facts and the offender's post-conviction conduct, confirming that premature release is a concession, not a vested right.

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Articel 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., is for setting aside the order dated 29.11.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2 in view of the Government Policy dated 04.02.1993 and policy dated 12.04.2002 and to consider the pre-mature release of the petitioner in view of the above-mentioned Government Policy.

2. As per the facts of the case, the petitioner was prosecuted in FIR No.125, dated 20.10.2004, registered under Sections 302, 449, 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station City Gohana, District Sonepat and he was convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat under Sections 449, 302, 34 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide order dated 22.11.2006. Thereafter, on completion of about 12 years of actual sentence, the petitioner applied for premature release, however, the same was considered and dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.11.2023 by learned Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana, Jail Department. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 29.11.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. He submits that case of the petitioner is covered by Haryana Government Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002 (hereinafter referred to ‘Policy’) (Annexure P-2), vide which the petitioner is to be released after completion of 10 years of actual sentence and 14 years of total sentence, whereas, the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 12 years, 01 month & 02 days and total sentence of 14 years, 03 months & 13 days as on the date of filing of the application. He submits that the respondent-authorities have illegally rejected the application of premature release of the petitioner on the ground that the case of the petitioner for premature release is covered under Para 2 (a)(x) of the Policy which applies to the convicts who were imprisoned for life having committed a heinous crime such as murder exhibiting brutality such as cutting the body into pieces or burning, dragging the body for which he is required to undergo 14 years of actual sentence and 20 years of total sentence to be eligible for his case of premature release. He has relied upon judgments of this Court in CRWP-1576-2019 titled as Vakil Singh @ Ajaib Singh , decided on 11.02.2022; CRWP-8232-2022 titled as Pohlu @ Polu Ram, decided on 05.02.2024; CRWP-4366-2022 titled as Shiv Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 19.12.2023 and CRWP-10709-2022 titled as Harbans Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 05.02.2024. It is further submitted that the petitioner is confining in Central Jail-I, Hisar and his act and conduct inside the jail remained excellent and of utmost satisfaction. He, thus, submits that the impugned order being unsustainable in the eyes of law, deserves to be set aside and case of the petitioner for premature release be considered in terms of policy dated 12.04.2002.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. State counsel has submitted that the petitioner alongwith co-accused had brutally committed the murder of Jitender by causing repeated stab wounds on the chest, stomach and other parts of the body of the deceased with sharp edged knife like dagger (Chhura) on 19.10.2004 by inflicting 11 injuries, out of which 4 injuries are skin deep and rest are incised injur