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
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140740
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
