Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramandeep vs State Of Punjab And Others on 25 October, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140740
224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP No. 2674 of 2024
Date of Decision: 25
25.10.2024
RAMANDEEP ...PETITIONER
VS.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Sandeep Verma,, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
1. Petitioner has come before this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to initiate the case of the petitioner for premature release as per the policy dated 08.07.1991 issued by Gove Government rnment of Punjab (Annexure P-3) P 3) as the case of the petitioner has already undergone the requisite period of incarceration under the said policy.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court had convicted the petitioner for commission of offence offences punishable under Section 302 and 396, 412 and 120-B. 120 B. However, sentences were ordered to run consecutively.. Subsequently, the petitioner had challenged the conviction and sentence same before this Court and a Coordinate Bench of this Court while dismissing the appeal vide judgment dated 29.09.2022 modified the sentences and were ordered to run concurrently.
3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is also entitled to all benefits provided under Sections 428 Cr.P.C./408 BNSS, 2023.
1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 31-10-2024 02:30:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140740 CRWP No. 2674 of 2024 -2-
4. On the other hand counsel for the State submits that case of the petitioner is not covered under the policy and petitioner is required to undergo the required parity as per policy and refer para 6 of reply which is reproduced here:-
"That in reply to the averments made in Para 6 of the petition, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner has not yet undergone requisite actual imprisonment needed for initiation of his premature release case under the policy dated 08.07.1991 column 'B' of 1(I) i.e. heinous category wherein, a lifer requires to undergo '12 years' actual sentence and with remission '18 years'. The premature release case will be initiated after completion of requisite sentence detailed above."
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be contended and satisfied if his case is decided afresh by passing a reasoned order of the considering his all averments in the petition without being influenced by the earlier rejection by them.
6. Given above, let respondent be state to consider case of petitioner for pre-mature release after taking note of the order to run sentence concurrently and granting benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC and pass a reasoned and speaking order without being influenced by the order of earlier rejection and communicate the same to petitioner and his family members without any delay.
7. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
25.10.2024
Poonam Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 31-10-2024 02:30:48 :::