SUBHASH @ BHASHA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dtd. 6/8/2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for premature release has been declined, in contravention of the policy dtd. 13/8/2008 (Annexure P-2).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has undergone 15 years 03 Months 18 days of actual custody and a custody of 20 years 00 months 13 days including remission. According to the applicable policy i.e. policy dtd. 13/8/2008, the petitioner falls into Category 'B' and requires 14 years of actual custody and 20 years of total custody to be eligible for premature release. The State Level Committee was required to consider the case of the petitioner, in terms of the policy applicable at the time of his conviction, which would be the policy dtd. 13/8/2008, according to which the petitioner is eligible for premature release. However, the case of petitioner was rejected on the ground of involvement in other criminal offences and in view of that the same has been deferred by one year. Denying the concession of premature release to a convict citing nature of the offence committed by him would defeat the purpose of the policy. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Jagdish, AIR 2010 SC 1690. Further, a co-ordinate bench of this Hon'ble court in Subash vs. Haryana 1994(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 489; and Lila Singh vs. State of Punjab 1988(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 28 has held that involvement in other offences would not be a ground to deny the concession of premature release.

(3.) Per contra, learned State counsel could not controvert the fact that the case of the petitioner was required to be considered under the policy which was applicable at the time of his conviction i.e. policy dtd. 13/8/2008 or that his case was rejected on the above mentioned grounds and deferred by one year vide impugned order dtd. 6/8/2024 (Annexure P-1).