IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

1.

CRWP-7180-2021

Decided on : February 11th, 2022

Jai Kishan @ Bhola

. . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and others

. . . Respondent(s)

2.

CRWP-7256-2021

Karnail Singh

. . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and others

. . . Respondent(s)

3.

CRWP-7178-2021

Mahesh Inder @ Happy

. . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and others

. . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANT PARKASH

PRESENT: Ms. B.P.K.Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Tanvir Joshi, AAG Punjab.

****

SANT PARKASH, J.

(The case has been taken up for hearing through video

conferencing.)

1.

This judgment shall dispose of aforementioned three petitions as

they have arisen out of the same FIR and involve common questions of facts

and law therein. For the convenience of the Court, the facts are being taken

from CRWP-7180-2021 titled as Jai Kishan @ Bhola Vs. State of Punjab and

AVIN KUMAR

2022.02.11 15:27

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document.

CRWP-7180-2021

-2-

others.

2.

The instant petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying for issuance of direction to the respondents to

initiate and consider the case for premature release of the petitioner in FIR

No.140 dated 28.11.2005 under Sections 302/307/34 of IPC and 25 & 27 of

Arms Act, Police Station Julkan, District Patiala whereby the petitioner was

convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide order dated

20.02.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Patiala out of which the petitioner

has already undergone more than 9 years and 5 months of actual sentence.

3.

The Criminal Appeal bearing No. CRA-290-DB-2010 filed by

the petitioner against the judgment/order of conviction & sentence has been

dismissed by this Court vide its judgment dated 06.08.2015. The petitioner is

confined in Open Air Agricultural Jail at Nabha.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is

entitled to be released prematurely as he has already undergone the required

sentence for premature release in view of the Instructions of Govt. of Punjab

dated 08.07.1991 regarding premature release of the life convicts in exercise

of the powers conferred under Sections 432, 433 and 433(A)of Cr.P.C. and

Article 161 of the Constitution of India.

5.

Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment in the case of State

of Haryana Vs, Mohinder Singh 2007(4) RCR 909 wherein the Hon'ble

Supreme Court observed that the instructions which were applicable at the

time of conviction are to be applied for consideration in the case of life

convict for grant of premature release.

AVIN KUMAR

2022.02.11 15:27

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document.

CRWP-7180-2021

-3-

6.

Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of affidavit of

Manjit Singh Tiwana, Superintendent, Open Air Agriculture Jail, Nabha

wherein it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to get premature release

as he does not fulfill the condition of Premature Release Policy dated

08.07.1991 as well as existing Policy dated 14.12.2017 whereby the

petitioner is required to undergo 09 years actual or 13 years actual or with

remission but in this case, he has undergone 07 years, 01 month and 05 days

of actual sentence.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the

record.

A perusal of reply reveals that Govt. of Punjab had constituted a

Committee for examination of the premature release cases of the life convict and

a meeting of the said committee was held on 16.07.2020 wherein it was decided

that for calculating the actual sentence the following fo