Som Nath vs State Of Haryana And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 16624 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Som Nath vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 September, 2024

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117381

CRWP-12104
     12104-2023 (O&M)                                                        -1-




        IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                    HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
272-2
                                                    CRWP-12104-20232023 (O&M)
                                                   Date of decision : 10.09.2024



Som Nath                                                          ...Petitioner



                                         Versus



State of Haryana and others                                   ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:-    Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India making prayer for setting aside the order

dated 29.11.2023 (Annexure P-4),, passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby,

the case of the petitioner for premature premature release, as per the policy dated

12.04.2022 (Annexure P-3) as issued by the Govt. of Haryana, had been

deferred for one year with a direction that his case will be re re-considered considered after

one year.

2. As submitted in the petition, the petitioner had been hheld eld guilty

and convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read

with Section 34 of IPC, vide judgment of conviction dated 01.09.2007 and

order on quantum of sentence dated 04.09.2007, passed in case arising out of

FIR No. 46 dated 08.04.2006, 08.04.2006, registered under Section 302 read with Section

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117381

CRWP-12104 12104-2023 (O&M) -2-

34 of IPC at Police Station Barara, District Ambala and had been sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Admittedly, he had filed an appeal

against his conviction, which had been dismissed by a Division Bench of this

Court, vide judgment dated 12.09.2012 passed in CRA-D-844-DB-2007.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the

petitioner had undergone the actual sentence of more than 14 years and 08

months and 18 days.. His case was fully covered under the policy issued by the

Govt. of Haryana on 12.04.2022 (Annexure P P-3).

3). His case was forwarded by

the respondent No. 3-Superintendent, 3 Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala for premature

release in the light of the aforesaid policy, however, instead of releasing the

petitioner on premature release, respondent No. 1 had deferred his case for a

period of one year by passing the impugned order dated 29.11.2023

(Annexure P-4).

P . It is further submitted that vide orders dated 25.07.2018,

convicts Hukmi Devi and Chandi Devi, who were also convicted for life

imprisonment in the aforesaid case, had been granted benefit of premature

release by respondent No. 1. It is further argued that while passing the

impugned order, although respondent No. 1 had observed that the petitioner

was entitled for the benefit of premature release in view of policy dated

12.04.2022, however, only on the ground that State Level Committee has

observed that the petitioner along with co co-accused accused had committed crime in a

cruel, ruel, ghastly and barbaric manner, he had deferred the case of the petitioner,

while ignoring the fact that aforesaid two convicts, who were convicted in the

same case and were awarded the same sentence, had already been granted the

said benefit. While submitting submitting that respondent No. 1 had passed the impugned

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117381

CRWP-12104 12104-2023 (O&M) -3-

order in an arbitrary manner, it is urged that the petition deserves to be

allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that there is no

infirmity nfirmity in the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 as the same was

based on the recommendation of the State Level Committee, which had

considered the parole case of the petitioner under para 2(a)(viii) of the

Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.202 12.04.2023 in its meeting held on 25.10.2023

and it was only after due deliberations and keeping in view the manner in

which the crime had been committed by the petitioner that his case for

premature release was deferred for one year. Therefore, he has urged for

dismissal of the present petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have also

gone through the material placed on record carefully.

6. At the outset, it may be mentioned that as per aforesaid policy

dated 12.04.2023, a convict can be released prematurely on fulfilling certain

conditions and on recommendation of the competent authority. As per the

policy, the Superintendent of Jail concerned shall submit the premature

release cases of life convicts two months in advance to the Director General of

Police, Haryana with his comments. Then such cases will be put up by the

Director General of Police, Haryana before the State Level Committee

comprising Minister for Jails, being Chairman, Financial Commissioner and

Principal Secretary Secretary of Govt. of Haryana, Jails Department, Legal

Remembrancer, Haryana, being members and the Director General of Police,

Haryana, being Member Secretary. The decision so taken by the said

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117381

CRWP-12104 12104-2023 (O&M) -4-

Committee shall be forwarded to the State Government for taking further

action.

7. In the case in hand, the petitioner has been undergoing life

imprisonment and had already undergone actual sentence of more than 14

years, 08 months and 18 days and including remissions, he had undergone a

period of 20 years, 04 months and 03 days, as reflected from the impugned

order itself.

itself A perusal of the aforesaid policy reveals that the case of the

petitioner falls under Clause 2(a)(viii),

(a)(viii), as per which, a convict can be

considered for premature release on completion of 14 years of actual sentence

including undertrial period, provided that such sentence including remissions

should not be less than 20 years. Hence, the case of the petitioner is squarely

covered under the aforesaid clause for his premature release. Now, this Court

has to assess as to whether the grounds taken by the respondent respondent-authority authority to

pass the impugned order are sustainable in the eyes of law or not?

8. It is well settled that the State having fo formulated rmulated rules and a

standing policy for deciding cases of premature release, it is bound by its own

formulations of law. Since there are legal provisions which hold the field, it is

not open to the State to adopt an arbitrary yardstick for picking up case casess for

premature release. It must strictly abide by the terms of its own policies

bearing in mind the fundamental principle of law that each case for premature

release has to be decided on the basis of the legal proposition as it stands on

the date of the conviction conviction subject to a more beneficial regime being provided

in terms of a subsequent policy determination. The provisions of law must be

applied equally to all persons. Moreover, those provisions have to be applied

efficiently and transparently so as to obviate obviate the grievance that the policy is

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117381

CRWP-12104 12104-2023 (O&M) -5-

being applied unevenly to similarly circumstanced persons. Reliance in this

regard can be placed upon the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Rajkumar vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh : AIR 2023 SC 265

265.Once Once a

policy is formulated by the State defining the terms for premature release,

then due consideration in terms of the policy must be given to all eligible

convicts as the Constitution guarantees against the arbitrary treatment and the

right to secure life and an personal liberty must not be foreclosed by an unfair

process of considering the applications for premature release in terms of

policy. Reliance can also be placed upon Rashidul Jafar @ Chota vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh : 2022 (4) RCR (Criminal) 702 702, wherein in similar observations

were made by the Apex Court and it was also held that implementation of the

policy for premature release has to be carried out in an objective and

transparent manner as otherwise it would impinge on the constitutional

guarantees under Articles 14 and 21of of the Constitution. Undisputedly, no

convict has fundamental right of seeking remission or shortening of sentence

as a matter of right and it is always the discretion of the Government to grant

remission by considering the peculiar facts of each case but it is equally well

settled that the discretion so vested is to be exercised in an unbiased and fair

manner and once a convict has been placed under a particular category, he

cannot be discriminated against the others.

9. The case off the petitioner for his premature release has been

deferred by respondent No. 1 by passing the impugned order while observing

that the State Level Committee had observed that the petitioner along with co-

co

accused had committed crime in a most cruel, ghastl ghastlyy and barbaric manner. It

was not the case that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought by him.

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117381

CRWP-12104 12104-2023 (O&M) -6-

Rather, it is admitted in the impugned order that the policy dated 12.04.2023

was applicable to the case of the petitioner for premature release.

10. In Gurbax Singh vs. State of Haryana : 1994 (3) RCR

(Criminal) 342, 342, this Court has observed that it can hardly be doubted that in

every murder, there is an element of brutality and murder in itself is a heinous

crime but if the State Government itself has chosen to classify murder in

different ways for the purpose of premature release, it is bound by its

instructions and they must be followed. A perusal of the aforesaid policy

reveals that there was no such provision to defer the case of a convict for

premature release on the said ground, when otherwise he was eligible for the

same having undergone the requisite period of custody. The petitioner has

brought into notice of this Court that two convicts, namely Hukumi Devi and

Chandi Devi, who were also convicted convicted for life imprisonment along with the

petitioner, have been extended benefit of premature release, vide orders dated

25.07.2018. The action of the respondent respondent-authorities authorities is certainly arbitrary in

deferring the premature release case of the petitione petitionerr for one year. In the

absence of any specific provision in the aforesaid policy at the time of

conviction, the competent authority cannot act arbitrarily and defer the case of

the petitioner for premature release. Reliance in this regard can be placed

upon n the judgment rendered by this Court in Pohlu @ Polu Ram vs. State of

Haryana and others, others CRWP-8232-2022, 2022, decided on 05.02.2024.

11. In view of the ratio of law as discussed above, it is clear that the

impugned order cannot be stated to be sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence,

the same is set aside. The respondent-authorities respondent authorities are directed to consider the

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117381

CRWP-12104 12104-2023 (O&M) -7-

case of the petitioner afresh for his premature release in the light of this order, or

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

12. It is made clear that during interregnum, the petitioner shall

continue to be on special parole.

10.09.2024                                                (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari                                                 JUDGE


          Whether speaking/reasoned                       Yes

          Whether reportable                              Yes




                                      7 of 7