Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jumaa @ Amin vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 April, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044791
CRWP-8546-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
274 CRWP-8546-2024
Date of decision : 01.04.2025
Jumma @ Amin ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others .............. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Sween Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harkesh Singh, AAG, Haryana.
*****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)
1. The prayer in the instant petition filed under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing the
impugned order dated 13.10.2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent
No.1, whereby prayer for grant of premature release has been rejected and
deferred for reconsideration after completion of 20 years actual sentence
and 25 years of total sentence despite fulfilling the conditions mentioned in
the premature release Policy dated 13.08.2008(Annexure P-3) and i.e.
violative of para 17(iii) of the order passed by this Court in CRWP-8283
of 2022.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the
petitioner is at present undergoing his life imprisonment in District Jail,
Faridabad. The petitioner was convicted vide impugned judgment of
conviction dated 04.03.2009 and impugned order of sentence dated
10.03.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind and he
was awarded rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with
Section 149 IPC and awarded RI for 7 years under Sections 412 and 148
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044791
IPC. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal against his conviction and
this Court has acquitted the petitioner for an offence under Section 412
read with Section 149 IPC and Section 148 IPC. However, his conviction
was maintained under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Admittedly,
the petitioner was convicted in the year 2009 and accordingly his case
would be covered by the Policy of 13th August, 2008 (Annexure P-3) and
as per the aforementioned policy, the petitioner was required to undergo
actual sentence of 14 years for the purpose of premature release. The
State Level Committee has rejected the case of the petitioner for premature
policy on the ground that petitioner is accused of double murder of Tarsem
Chand and Bhoti Devi, aged 70 and 60 years respectively and as such, it
has been concluded that the case of the petitioner falls under Clause-A of
the Premature release Policy dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P-3) and his case
for premature policy was deferred and it was decided to place his case
before the State level Committee for consideration after completion of 14
years of actual sentence and 25 years of total sentence. He further referred
to para 11 of the reply filed by the respondents No.1 to 4 and submits that
appellant has undergone actual custody of 1 year 10 months and 09 days as
undertrial and he has undergone 15 years 6 months and 21 days after his
conviction. His actual undergone period is 17 years 4 months and 2 days
and as such, the petitioner is fully entitled to be released as per policy of
premature release. Learned counsel further submits that his case is
squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in case of Pohlu @ Polu
Ram Vs. State of Haryana passed in CRWP-8232-2022. The relevant
paras No.11 and 12 & 17(iii) are reproduced as under:
11. The entire edifice of exercise of judicial or quasi-
judicial power rests on the foundation of giving reasoned and
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044791
detailed orders. It is a fundamental principle of natural justice
and ensures that there is proper and due application of mind
while exercising said power. Therefore, the practice of
arbitrarily categorising convicts as threats to society or
indiscriminately deferring their cases for premature release
needs to be strongly discouraged. It is expedient that the
competent authority does not act in a ritualistic fashion and
application of mind is discernable.
12. A two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Haryana Vs. Jagdish AIR 2010 SC 1690, speaking
through Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan laid down the parameters to
consider while deciding upon the question of premature release:
"38. At the time of considering the case of pre-mature release of
a life convict, the authorities may require to consider his case
mainly taking into consideration
1. whether the offence was an individual act of crime without
affecting the society at large;
2. whether there was any chance of future recurrence of
committing a crime;
3. whether the convict had lost his potentiality in committing the
crime;
4. whether there was any fruitful purpose of confining the
convict any more;
5. the socio-economic condition of the convict's family and other
similar circumstances." (enumeration added)
17.(iii) Deferred in the absence of any specific provision in
the applicable policy or rejected/deferred on the ground of
offences being grave and serious in nature.
In the absence of any specific provision in the
applicable policy at the time of conviction of the convict, the
competent authority cannot act arbitrarily and defer the cases of
prisoners for premature release especially by applying the
rigours of change of policy, in view of the law laid down in
Rajkumar's case (supra).
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044791
3. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned order
dated 13.10.2021 (Annexure P-4) is set aside and competent authority is
directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh within a period of 3
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order strictly in
terms of judgments in case of State of Haryana Vs Jagdish, AIR 2010 SC
1690 and Pohlu @ Polu Ram Vs. State of Haryana passed in CRWP-
8232-2022.
4. It is further made clear that in case any deviation by the
concerned authority in deciding the case of the petitioner from the
applicable policy, would entitle the petitioner to initiate the contempt
proceedings by filing appropriate application under Article 215 of the
Constitution of India.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
01.04.2025
anil
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
