Ram Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 966 P&H

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                                                  CRWP-11597-2021
                                                  Date of Decision:-17.01.2023

RAM KUMAR
                                                                   ... Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
                                                                  ... Respondent(s)
              -.-


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH

              -.-

Present:-     Mr. D.N. Ganeriwala, Advocate
              for the petitioner.

              Mr. Naveen Kumar Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.

              -.-


KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (Oral)

This is a writ filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India

seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of order dated

19.10.2021 (Annexure P-4) vide which the claim of the petitioner with

regard to premature release has been deferred for three years with the

following observations:-

"The State level committee in its meeting dated

12.08.2021 has considered this case recommended that

this case is over under Para 2(a) of the Premature Release

Policy dated 04.02.1993 as amended on 17.07.1997, but

keeping in view the nature of crime committed by this

1 of 4

(2) CRWP-11597-2021

life convict alongwith his co-accused in a gruesome,

diaboliesl and ghastly manner and the manner in which

he had shown disrespect to the dead bodies for destroying

the evidence and the fact that this life convict also

absconded from parole for 01 year, 01 month and 04 days

and also misutilised the Government concession, hence,

this life convict does not deserve any concession at this

stage from the Government and the State Level

Committee has recommended that the case for premature

release of this life convict be deferred for three years,

excluding the special parole period on account of

COVID, as no convict has fundamental right of remission

or shortening of sentence. In fact, these are priviliges

granted by the State to the convicted prisoner. The State

Government in exercise of its executive discretionary

power of remission, is to consider each individual case

keeping in view all the relevant factors.

After agreeing with the recommendations of the State Level

Committee, the case for premature release of this life convict is

deferred for three years excluding the special parole period on

account of COVID and will be re-considered after three-years,

subject to his good conduct during this deferred period."

As per the reply filed by the State, petitioner was convicted and

sentenced to life imprisonment by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,

Sirsa vide judgment dated 27.7.1998 and the detail of the sentence already

undergone by the petitioner as on 16.9.2022 is as under:-

2 of 4

(3) CRWP-11597-2021

Sr. No. Sentence undergone Years Months Days

1. Actual sentence 17 08 17

2. Total sentence 21 03 12

As the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1998, so

the policy of premature release of 2000 formulated by the State of Haryana

is applicable in the present case. In the same very criminal case co-accused

Ram Chander, Sohan Lal, Ranbir @ Randhir and Om Parkash were also

sentenced to life imprisonment and it was double murder case.

The counsel for the petitioner has contended that co-accused

Ram Chander has already been granted concession of pre-mature release by

Haryana Government and accordingly the writ petition filed by said co-

convict already stands disposed of. The counsel for the petitioner has

further contended that earlier co-convict Om Parkash's case was also

ordered to be deferred for a period of 2 years and being aggrieved he filed

CWP-21399-2018 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order

dated 16.5.2019 (Annexure P-2) with direction to the State to re-consider the

claim of the said petitioner in terms of the aforesaid Policy of year 2000

within a period of 90 days and in the meantime he was ordered to be

released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. The

counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order was

passed on the ground that about 23 years back the petitioner absconded from

parole and for which he was penalized. The counsel for the petitioner has

further submitted that on that sole ground the case of the petitioner for his

premature released could not be deferred for any longer period and specially

3 of 4

(4) CRWP-11597-2021

when the claim of similarly situated co-convict Ram Chander has been

already accepted by the State counsel.

In view of the above as co-convict Ram Chander already stands

released, the impugned order (Annexure P-4) is not sustainable in the eyes of

law and accordingly the same is hereby set aside. The present petition is

disposed of with direction to the State to reconsider the claim of the

petitioner in terms of Policy of year 2000 while taking into consideration the

good conduct of the petitioner in the recent past. The necessary exercise be

completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified

copy of this order.

In the meantime, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail

subject to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.

                                            ( KARAMJIT SINGH)
17.01.2023                                       JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot


                      Whether reasoned / speaking?     Yes / No

                      Whether reportable?              Yes / No




                                      4 of 4