CRWP-2588-2024 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (294) CRWP-2588-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:27.07.2026 Anil … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Vijay K. Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. The present Criminal Writ Petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Para No.2(b) of the Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider and grant the petitioner the benefit of premature release in connection with FIR No. 51 dated 04.02.2003, registered under Sections 302, 148, 452, 323, 325 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani, District Bhiwani. 2. The petitioner–convict, namely Anil, is presently confined in the District Jail, Bhiwani. He, along with his father and brother, was tried and convicted for the aforesaid offences. Vide judgment of conviction and GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.27 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-2588-2024 (O&M) -:2:- order of sentence (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was sentenced, inter alia, to imprisonment for life along with a fine of 10,000/- ₹ for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, with a further sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years in default of payment of fine. 2.1. As per the custody certificate placed on record, the petitioner has undergone approximately 13 years, 9 months and 9 days of actual imprisonment after conviction, while the total period of sentence undergone, inclusive of remissions, is approximately 18 years, 3 months and 18 days. His case for premature release was duly considered by the competent authorities under the Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002, being the policy prevailing on the date of his conviction. 2.2. It is borne out from Annexure P-3 that the State Level Committee, in its meeting held on 30.06.2023, recommended that the petitioner's case for premature release be reconsidered only after he had completed 14 years of actual imprisonment and 20 years of total sentence, including remissions. 3. The aforesaid recommendation has been assailed in the present petition as being legally unsustainable, arbitrary and contrary to the governing policy. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the State Level Committee itself recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner's case squarely falls within the ambit of Para No.2(b) of the Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002. However, despite such finding, the Committee declined to recommend his premature release and instead directed reconsideration only upon completion of 14 years of GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.27 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-2588-2024 (O&M) -:3:- actual sentence and 20 years of total sentence, which, according to the petitioner, is wholly inconsistent with and dehors the stipulations contained in the applicable policy. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned recommendation suffers from patent illegality and deserves to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has supported the impugned recommendation, contending that the same does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or procedural infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. However, learned State counsel fairly does not dispute that the petitioner's case has been considered under Para No.2(b) of the Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings, the paper book and the material placed on record with their able assistance. 5.1. It is not the stand of the State that the petitioner's case does not fall within the ambit of Para No.2(b) of the Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002. Rather, the recommendation of the State Level Committee itself proceeds on the premise that the said policy governs the petitioner's case. For ready reference, Para No.2(b) of the Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002 is reproduced hereunder:- (b) Adult life convicts who have been imprisoned for life but whose case are not covered under (aa) and (a) above and who have committed crime which are not considered heinous as mentioned in clause (aa) and (a) above Their cases may be considered after completion of 10 years including actual sentence undertrial period provided that the total period of such sentence including remissions GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.27 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-2588-2024 (O&M) -:4:- is not less than 14 years. 5.1. In the present case, as per custody certificate dated 20.07.2026, the petitioner has undergone actual custody period after conviction as approximately 13 years, 09 months and 09 days, whereas total sentence undergone by him is about 18 years, 03 months and 18 days. 5.2. As per Para No.2(b) of the Policy, the case of the petitioner is required to be considered for premature release after completion of 10 years of actual sentence and total sentence of 14 years, whereas the petitioner as per custody certificate dated 20.07.2026 has already undergone actual custody of approximately 13 years, 09 months and 09 days, whereas total sentence undergone by him is about 18 years, 03 months and 18 days. 5.3. The relevant portion of order Annexure P-3 is reproduced as under:- “Total period of sentence undergone by this convict in the jail upto 31.12.2022 is as under:- Y M D ACTUAL SENTENCE 13 01 22 TOTAL SENTENCE 14 00 00 02. The date of conviction of the convict is 12.07.2005. Hence, the premature release policy dated 12.04.2002 is applicable in this case. 3. The State Level committee in its meeting held on 30.06.2023 has considered his case under para 2(b) of the Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002. After thorough discussion the Committee recommends that the case for premature release of this life convict will be re-considered after completion of 14 years of actual sentence and 20 years of total sentence.” GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.27 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-2588-2024 (O&M) -:5:- 6. A careful consideration of the impugned recommendation leaves no manner of doubt that, despite recording that the petitioner's case is governed by Para No.2(b) of the Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002, the State Level Committee has failed to assign any cogent, discernible or legally sustainable reasons for declining to recommend the petitioner's premature release in accordance with the said policy. Such an approach is manifestly unsustainable in law. It is trite that executive policies governing the consideration of premature release of life convicts are binding upon the authorities entrusted with their implementation, and the exercise of discretion thereunder must remain informed by the parameters prescribed therein. Once the competent authority itself acknowledges the applicability of Para No.2(b) of the Policy, any departure therefrom, in the absence of recorded reasons founded upon relevant considerations, is patently arbitrary and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. The recommendation of the State Level Committee, therefore, is clearly at variance with, and in derogation of, the mandate contained in Para No.2(b) of the Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002. Furthermore, the controversy involved in the present petition stands squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRWP-8907-2023, Chetan @ Chintu v. State of Haryana and Others, decided on 28.03.2025, wherein an identical issue came to be considered and adjudicated. 7. Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of. The impugned recommendation of the State Level Committee, insofar as it postpones consideration of the petitioner's case contrary to Para No.2(b) of GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.27 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-2588-2024 (O&M) -:6:- the Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002, is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the applicable Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002 and the law laid down by this Court in Chetan @ Chintu v. State of Haryana and others (supra), by passing a fresh, reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously, not later than a period of “four weeks” from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 8. Consequent upon the final adjudication of the principal lis, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings, shall also stand disposed of. In view of the conclusions recorded here-in-above, no separate or further orders are required to be passed in respect of such applications, the same having been rendered infructuous and subsumed by the present adjudication. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 27.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.27 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document