##PAGE1##

238 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Mukesh ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ….Respondents Date of Decision: October 30, 2026 Date of Uploading: October 30, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Lajpat Rai Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

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 24.08.2026 (Annexure P-9) 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 01 year, which is 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 also in violation of Premature Release Policy dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P-2). Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to release the petitioner till the case is not considered by the competent authority for premature release, as per the Pre-Mature Release Policy dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P-2).

2. 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-11281-2024, which was disposed of, vide order dated 02.12.2024;

relevant whereof reads thus:

“4. Given above, the petition is disposed of with observations that if the case of the petitioner is at par with the co-convict then petitioner is certainly entitled to same relief as given to co-convict under Article 14 of Constitution of India. As such, let a decision be taken by the concerned authorities that whether the petitioner is entitled to same relief as was given to some co-convict and because of Article 14 which provides equality before law and grounds on parity. The decision be taken on or before 31.12.2024. Liberty reserved to petitioner to come again to this Court, if need arises. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”

2.1. Learned counsel has further iterated that pursuant to the aforesaid order, respondent No.3 passed the order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure P-7) rejecting the plea of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not completed actual sentence of 14 years and total sentence of 20 years along with remissions. It has been urged that the petitioner laid challenged the order dated 18.02.2025, by way of CRWP-9155-2025 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.04.2026 (Annexure P-8) by directing the concerned State Authorities to take a ratiocinated decision upon the plea of the petitioner. It has been contended that yet again, vide impugned order dated 24.08.2026 (Annexure P-9), case of the petitioner was rejected and deferred for one year to be reconsidered from 30.06.2026 to evaluate his conduct.

2.2. Learned counsel has urged that co-convict(s) of the petitioners, namely, Bansi, Rajinder @ Naresh and Yad Ram @ Yadu @ Pappu who had also approached this Court by way of different writ petition(s) seeking their pre- mature release, and the case of the petitioner is similarly placed as to that of aforesaid co-convicts, have already been ordered to be released; however, the petitioner has not been accorded the same benefit.

2.3. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner, along with his co-accused, was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 460 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment, vide judgment of conviction/ order of sentence dated 20/21.02.2009 (Annexure P-1) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat; and appeal preferred thereagainst also stands dismissed vide judgment dated 29.07.2013 passed in CRA-D-775-DB-2010.

2.4. Learned counsel has argued that the case of the petitioner, for grant of Pre-Mature Release, has been passed in viola