Premjit Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2960 P&H

125+253
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                                    ****

CRM-W No.1087 of 2021 in/and CRWP No.2060 of 2020 Date of Decision: 12.10.2021

Premjit Singh and another ..... Petitioners

Versus State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents

CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA

Present: Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate, for the applicants/petitioners.

Mr. B.S. Sewak, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

SUDIP AHLUWALIA J. (ORAL)

CRM-W No.1087 of 2021

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the

applicants/petitioners are permitted to place on record a copy of the orders

passed by this Court in CRA-D No.273-DB of 2011 and CRA-D No.1106-

DB of 2011 vide order dated 20.11.2015 (Annexure P-10).

Application stands disposed off.

CRWP No.2060 of 2020

The instant petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

constitution of India read with section 482 Cr.P.C. for the issuance of a writ

in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the orders dated 03.10.2019

(Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.1.

2. Attention of the Court is drawn to the impugned order

(Annexure P-8) vide which the petitioners' prayer for premature release

was rejected by the Additional Director General of Police (Jails), Punjab.

1 of 2

CRWP No.2060 of 2020

However, similar prayer on behalf of the co-convict, Jagdeep Singh, who

was also found guilty of the same offences and awarded identical

punishment by the Ld. Trial Court, was allowed vide the order dated

05.12.2018 (Annexure P-9). The judgment of conviction and sentence

awarded to the petitioners and the above-said co-convict was upheld by a

Division Bench of this Court in CRA-D No.273-DB of 2011 on 20.11.2015

(Annexure P-10).

3. To that extent, therefore, there is a clear inconsistency in the

impugned order in which altogether different view has been taken on behalf

of respondent No.2 in the matter of considering the petitioners' prayer for

premature release.

4. Keeping in view the above, the impugned order, therefore, is

set aside with a direction upon respondent No.2 to pass a fresh reasoned

order on the petitioners' prayer of premature release after taking into

account the order passed in respect of co-convict, Jagdeep Singh. Such,

order shall be passed by the Competent Authority/Authorized Officer under

respondent No.1 within a period of four weeks from the date of

communication of this order.

5. Disposed off.

12.10.2021                                       (SUDIP AHLUWALIA)
rittu                                                  JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes   No

Whether Reportable :        Yes   No




                                        2 of 2