The State is bound to adhere to its formulated premature release policies; it cannot arbitrarily reject or defer a convict's application for release based on the nature of the past crime if the convict otherwise fulfills policy criteria, as this violates the reformative goals of the criminal justice system and Article 14.

SUMEET GOEL, J.

Present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, seeking setting-aside of the impugned order dated 05.09.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.1, vide which the case of the petitioner for pre-mature release has been rejected and deferred to be reconsidered after a period of two years, against the law laid down by this Court in CRWP-8232-2022 titled as Pohlu @ Polu Ram versus State of Haryana and others , decided on 05.02.2024 and further in violation of Premature Release Policy dated 04.02.1993. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to release the petitioner as per the Pre-Mature Release Policy dated 04.02.1993 (Annexure P-2); and to stay the operation of the order dated 05.09.2025 (Annexure P-3), during the pendency of the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, contended that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of filing a petition i.e. CRWP-888-2025, seeking the aforesaid relief, in which, notice of motion was issued and the same is now pending adjudication for 07.05.2026. Learned counsel has further submitted that on completion of requisite 20 years of sentence, including 06 years of remission, case of the petitioner was put up before the State Level Committee, but the same has been rejected, vide impugned order dated 05.09.2025, and deferred for reconsideration after 02 years form 30.06.2025.

Learned counsel has submitted that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by way of CRWP-8990-2024 and CRWP-12022-2024, which were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh with betters particulars, vide orders dated 16.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) and dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure P-7), respectively.

Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment, vide judgment of conviction/ order of sentence dated 01.05.1998 (Annexure P-1) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri. Learned counsel has further submitted that the case of the petitioner, for grant of Pre-Mature Release, has been passed in violation of Pre-Mature Release Policy dated 04.02.1993 (Annexure P-2) and further in direct violation of decisions of this Court in Pohlu @ Polu Ram vs. State of Haryana and others, CRWP No.8232 of 2022, decided on 05.02.2024 (Annexure p-4), as well as decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana versus Jagdish , reported as AIR 2010 SC 1690. Learned counsel has further argued that in a similar manner, one convict, namely, Pawan Kumar, had approached this Court by way of CRWP-11218-2024 titled as Pawan Kumar versus State of Haryana and others, which was disposed of, vide order dated 19.02.2025 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while setting aside the impugned order (therein) and directed the competent authority to consider and decide his case afresh, strictly in accordance with applicable policy and also in view of ratio of law laid down in Jagdish's case (supra) and Pohlu @ Polu Ram's case (supra). Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner's case has been deferred on account of the fact that the accused persons had committed double murder, which is heinous crime and further, the petitioner has committed four jail offences and also remained in another criminal offence. Hence, grant of petition in hand is prayed for.

Per contra, learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the reply, which is already on record, has opposed the grant of petition in hand by arguing that the case of the petitioner has rightly been rejected and deferred as he has committed a heinous crime, however, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner fulfils the conditions mentioned in the Policy (Annexure P-2), which is applicable in the case of the petitioner.

Having heard the l