High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRWP/2272/2019allowed

Parmod Mandal v. State Of Haryana And Others

2022-03-10Mr. Justice Sant Parkash6 pages

-2272-2019

! """

#$%& %'

# (#) * #+ %,# - % &

./ & * *0*

! *0* 1

$$%&$$'

) #

./#

0$1 0# 2)3

*-* +* ,- $,,4 +%4&+,$&$,*&+5$&+6

) *-%, 3 0

# 3 *% ,+ $,,5

*' ,+ $,,5 7 (3006*,090$,,5 7 #

$, ,6 $,**

# ##

; #

.0$1 0 #

# # !

*' ,5 $,,4 #

# #7

# 8

)

2! #

! 7!

# 0#

/ #7

*% ,+ $,,5 # # 7

# .1.1

*+ ,- $,,-

# # It is not disputed that the case of premature release of a life convict is governed by the policy of the Government prevailing on the date of judgment of conviction and not by the policy which existed on the date of

consideration of his premature release. Undisputedly, at the time of conviction of petitioner i.e. 16.03.2009, the prevailing policy for pre-mature release of convicts was Premature Release Policy dated 13.08.2008.

.0$1 0 #

#0 (a)

0 #

$4 (i) //

// (ii) #

&3 77!& !& & 7# (iii) to (xi) x xx xx //

// (b)

)( &

# 7

0 #

*6 # =

# #

$* ,* $,$,

*6 ! ,6

,4 !

*% ,4

*5 ,+

# # #

> $' ,+ $,,- 9 &2&2!

32&2""4&, %#* 5, %,#(* #+ %,#61 this Court observed that the petitioners had been

found guilty for the commission of three murders. However, the imprisonment for life was imposed on each one of them by the trial court on three counts. The said imprisonment awarded on three counts was ordered to run concurrently. So, no discrimination could be done on the basis of classification of two murders or three murders. There was no valid basis for the classification because Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides equality before law. It was also held that the provision of the policy is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 20 of the Constitution of India.

) # ,* ,$ $,** .#7,'')(* #+ %,#61

2)3 +,$&+%6&+''&4** )(

# ,%

In the case in hand, the policy dated 13.08.2008 is applicable and as per clause (a)(ii) thereof, the petitioner had to undergo 20 years of actual sentence and 25 years of total sentence including remissions on account of the fact that offences alleged to have been committed by him are covered under the said clause. Such distinction made in the policy is totally arbitrary and has certainly caused hardship to the petitioner, who has undergone more than 16 years and 05 months and 14 days of actual sentence and more than 19 years and 03 months and 08 days with remissions. Thus, it can safely be held that as per the judgment passed in Mahender Singh's

case (supra), the offence committed by the petitioner does not fall under the heinous category for the reason that if a convict is involved in the murder of more than two persons, even then he is to be considered for pre-mature release and the case in hand the petitioner has been convicted for commission of offence of kidnapping with murder. Therefore, the petitioner in this case was required to be treated at par and he is held entitled to the same/similar treatment for the purpose of premature release. Consequently, the case of the petitioner is liable to be considered under clause (b) of the policy, which prescribes 14 years of actual sentence and 20 years of total sentence including remissions.

In the case in hand, the petitioner has already undergone more than 16 years and 05 months of actual sentence and 19 years and 03 months of total sentence including remissions, which could not disputed by the learned counsel for the State. Since the total actual sentence undergone by the petitioner is only 09 months less than the sentence prescribed under the prevalent policy, the question has been dealt with by this Court in CRWP2105-2019. The relevant part thereof reads as under:- "In the case in hand, the policy dated 12.02.2002 is applicable and as per clause 2 (aa)(i) thereof, the petitioner had to undergo 20 years of actual sentence and 25 years of total sentence including remissions on account of the fact that offences alleged to have been committed by him are covered under the said clause. Such distinction made in the policy is totally arbitrary and has certainly caused hardship to the petitioner, who has undergone more than 19 years, 02 months and 13 days of actual sentence and more than 25 years with remissions. Otherwise also, the total actual sentence

undergone by the petitioner is only 10 months less than the sentence prescribed under policy dated 12.02.2022, even if the said policy is made applicable".

Thus, the petitioner in this case is also required to be treated at par and is entitled to the same/similar treatment for the purpose of premature release. Further, as per Clauses 7(a) & (b) of the said policy, the overall conduct of the life convict during his confinement in jail with specific emphasis on his/her conduct for the last five years from the date of his/her eligibility for consideration of pre-mature release is to be seen and the convict has not punished for any jail offence during the last five years. )

?# !

! """

4*0* 6 $7

@ &3 AB &

< @ 3 7 AB &