SHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making prayer for setting aside the order dtd. 29/11/2023 (Annexure P-4), passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby, the case of the petitioner for premature release, as per the policy dtd. 12/4/2022 (Annexure P-3) as issued by the Govt. of Haryana, had been deferred for one year with a direction that his case will be re-considered after one year.

(2.) As submitted in the petition, the petitioner had been held guilty and convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of IPC, vide judgment of conviction dtd. 1/9/2007 and order on quantum of sentence dtd. 4/9/2007, passed in case arising out of FIR No. 46 dtd. 8/4/2006, registered under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of IPC at Police Station Barara, District Ambala and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Admittedly, he had filed an appeal against his conviction, which had been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dtd. 12/9/2012 passed in CRA-D-844-DB-2007.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner had undergone the actual sentence of more than 14 years and 08 months and 25 days. His case was fully covered under the policy issued by the Govt. of Haryana on 12/4/2022 (Annexure P-3). His case was forwarded by the respondent No. 3-Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala for premature release in the light of the aforesaid policy, however, instead of releasing the petitioner on premature release, respondent No. 1 had deferred his case for a period of one year by passing the impugned order dtd. 29/11/2023 (Annexure P-4). It is further submitted that vide orders dtd. 25/7/2018, convicts Hukmi Devi and Chandi Devi, who were also convicted for life imprisonment in the aforesaid case, had been granted benefit of premature release by respondent No. 1. It is further argued that while passing the impugned order, although respondent No. 1 had observed that the petitioner was entitled for the benefit of premature release in view of policy dtd. 12/4/2022, however, only on the ground that State Level Committee has observed that the petitioner along with co-accused had committed crime in a cruel, ghastly and barbaric manner, he had deferred the case of the petitioner, while ignoring the fact that aforesaid two convicts, who were convicted in the same case and were awarded the same sentence, had already been granted the said benefit. While submitting that respondent No. 1 had passed the impugned order in an arbitrary manner, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.