RANBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this instant petition as he is aggrieved against the denial of his premature release, in terms of policy dated 12.04.2002 (Annexure P/1).

(2.) In brief the facts are, that the petitioner was nominated as an accused in FIR No. 413 dated 30.12. 2004 under Sections 302, 307, 353, 186, 34 IPC, read with Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act, at Police Station Model Town, Panipat. He was tried along with the co-accused and held guilty for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 353, 186, IPC and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act. The petitioner and the co-accused were sentenced to life imprisonment along with payment of fine for offence under section 302 read with Section34 IPC. A Criminal Appeal No. 203 DB of 2006 was preferred against the conviction and sentence and the appeal was dismissed as was the SLP filed against the said judgement. The petitioner applied for premature release on completion of 11 years actual imprisonment and 14 years of total sentence including the remission. This matter was put up before the State-Level Committee and his request for premature release was turned down on the ground that the petitioner was required to undergo 14 years of actual sentence including under trial, provided that the total period of such sentence including remission is not less then 20 years and the said period was not completed. The case of the petitioner was considered again on completion of 14 years of actual sentence including under trial, and 20 years of total sentence including remission, but by an order dated 28.4.2020 the matter was deferred for a period of 2 years. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the instant petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr. Vikram Punia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends that the order dated 28.4. 2020 is an illegal, arbitrary and whimsical as the petitioner has completed actual sentence of 15 years 3 months 1 day and has earned remission of 7 years 6 months 6 days as on 1.4.2020. He was taken into custody of 31.12.2004 and was in custody as an under trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the policy dated 12.4.2002 which was on force on the date of his conviction. It is submitted that as per policy, premature release of a life convict who has committed a heinous crime such as murder, murder while undergoing life sentence, murder with Dacoity, murder in connection with dowry, murder of a child under the age of 14 years, murder of a woman, murder after abduction or kidnapping etc. may be considered after completion of 14 years actual sentence including under trial with a proviso that the total period of such sentence including remission is not less then 20 years. It is submitted that as per the policy, the petitioner was fully eligible for premature release and his case could not have been deferred for a further period of 2 years.