267. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Rajesh Kumar @ Don State of Haryana and CORAM: Present: MANJARI NEHRU KAUL 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rajesh Kumar @ Don Versus Haryana and others HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL None for the petitioner. Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, AAG, Haryana. ----- MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) On 23.07.2024, this Court passed the following order: “The instant petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of order dated 22. which respondent No.2 declined to grant regular for a period of ten weeks. Learned counsel inter alia contends that no doubt the petitioner had been put into ‘hardcore prisoners’ category from the date of his conviction i.e. w.e.f. 2017 for the next five years, however, after expiry of five years he was excluded from this category. He submits that order (Annexure P-1) had, thus, erroneously application moved by the petitioner of parole. Notice of motion. Ms. Trishanjali Sharma, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the State and seeks an adjournment to file reply. On request, adjourned to 27.08.2024. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-6289-2024 Date of decision: 02.04.2025 .... Petitioner .... Respondents HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, AAG, Haryana. On 23.07.2024, this Court passed the following order:- instant petition has been filed under Articles the Constitution of India read with Section 3 of the Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of order dated 22.12.2023 (Annexure P-1) vide which respondent No.2 declined to grant regular parole to him Learned counsel inter alia contends that no doubt the petitioner had been put into ‘hardcore prisoners’ category from viction i.e. w.e.f. 2017 for the next five expiry of five years he was excluded from this category. He submits that the respondent No.2 vide 1) had, thus, erroneously dismissed the application moved by the petitioner for extending the benefit Ms. Trishanjali Sharma, Dy. Advocate General, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of adjournment to file reply. On request, adjourned to 27.08.2024.” s instant petition has been filed under Articles the Constitution of India read with Section 3 of the Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, the nature of certiorari seeking 1) vide parole to him Learned counsel inter alia contends that no doubt the petitioner had been put into ‘hardcore prisoners’ category from viction i.e. w.e.f. 2017 for the next five expiry of five years he was excluded the respondent No.2 vide dismissed the benefit Ms. Trishanjali Sharma, Dy. Advocate General, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.04.03 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6289-2024 - 2 - 2. In compliance of aforesaid order, status report by way of an affidavit dated 25.01.2025 of Charan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Prison, District Prison, Karnal, on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, has been filed in Court today, which is taken on record. While drawing the attention to paragraph 3 of said status report, it has been submitted by the learned State counsel that the petitioner stands released on 23.11.2024, following his acquittal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3. In the circumstances, nothing survives in the present petition as it has been filed by the petitioner seeking his premature release. Present petition has become infructuous and dismissed as such. (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE April 02, 2025 sanjeev Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.04.03 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document