CRWP-8760 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 310 Ram Niwas Sharma Union of India and others CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. 226 of the Constitution of release him prematurely, while expunging the remarks made in the police report dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure P petitioner is a person of violent nature. 2. serving in Indian Army, is undergoing imprisonment for life, after being convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 69 of the Army Act read with Section 302 of IPC in case arising out of 24.08.2008, registered under Section 302 of IPC at Police Station, Haflong, Tripura, vide judgment dated 06.07.2011 passed by the General Court Martial 8760-2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ram Niwas Sharma Versus Union of India and others CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA Mr. P. R. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anita Balyan, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana for respondents No. 3 to 7. Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate for respondents No. 8 and 9. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing directions to the respondents to release him prematurely, while expunging the remarks made in the police report dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure P-7), wherein it was reported that the petitioner is a person of violent nature. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was in Indian Army, is undergoing imprisonment for life, after being convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 69 of the Army Act read with Section 302 of IPC in case arising out of 24.08.2008, registered under Section 302 of IPC at Police Station, Haflong, Tripura, vide judgment dated 06.07.2011 passed by the General Court Martial - IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-8760-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.03.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article India for issuing directions to the respondents to release him prematurely, while expunging the remarks made in the police 7), wherein it was reported that the he facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was in Indian Army, is undergoing imprisonment for life, after being convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 69 of the Army Act read with Section 302 of IPC in case arising out of FIR No. 87 dated 24.08.2008, registered under Section 302 of IPC at Police Station, Haflong, Tripura, vide judgment dated 06.07.2011 passed by the General Court Martial -1- 2024 (O&M) 26.03.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondents The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article India for issuing directions to the respondents to release him prematurely, while expunging the remarks made in the police 7), wherein it was reported that the he facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was in Indian Army, is undergoing imprisonment for life, after being convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 69 of the Army FIR No. 87 dated 24.08.2008, registered under Section 302 of IPC at Police Station, Haflong, Tripura, vide judgment dated 06.07.2011 passed by the General Court Martial MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.01 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-8760 (Annexure P Application but the same had been dismissed, vide order dated 03.05.2018 (Annexure P 5). The petitioner was transferred to District Jail, Narnaul, wherein he has been serving his sentence. 3. per custody certificate dated 22.08.2024, the actual sentence of more than sentence of 18 years, 06 months an the policy issued by the Hence, the case of the petitioner for his premature release should be approved and he should be released from custody as such. 4. i.e. State of Tripura and the Superintendent, Kendriya Sansodhanagar, Tripura, respectively. It is submitted therein and learned counsel for respondents No. 8 and 9 has not disputed that the petition requisite sentence for being eligible for premature release. that a fresh/last of Police, Mahendergarh on 28.01.2025, wherein no adverse thing/act has been reported against the petitioner and they have made a correspondence dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure R India for obtaining view on premature release of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the case of the referred to upcoming meeting of State Level Committee for examining same. 8760-2024 (O&M) (Annexure P-2). The petitioner had filed an appeal in the shape of Original Application No. 1377 of 2011 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh but the same had been dismissed, vide order dated 03.05.2018 (Annexure P The petitioner was transferred to District Jail, Narnaul, wherein he has been serving his sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that per custody certificate dated 22.08.2024, the petitioner had the actual sentence of more than 15 years and sentence of 18 years, 06 months and 11 days the policy issued by the State of Tripura Hence, the case of the petitioner for his premature release should be approved and he should be released from custody as such. Short reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 8 and 9, i.e. State of Tripura and the Superintendent, Kendriya Sansodhanagar, Tripura, respectively. It is submitted therein and learned counsel for respondents No. 8 and 9 has not disputed that the petition requisite sentence for being eligible for premature release. that a fresh/last antecedents report has been received from the Superintendent of Police, Mahendergarh on 28.01.2025, wherein no adverse thing/act has een reported against the petitioner and they have made a correspondence dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure R-8/3) with the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. India for obtaining view on premature release of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner for premature release referred to upcoming meeting of State Level Committee for examining - 2). The petitioner had filed an appeal in the shape of Original No. 1377 of 2011 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh but the same had been dismissed, vide order dated 03.05.2018 (Annexure P The petitioner was transferred to District Jail, Narnaul, wherein he has Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner had already undergone years and 05 months and 17 days and total d 11 days. His case is fully covered under State of Tripura on 29.11.2021 (Annexure P Hence, the case of the petitioner for his premature release should be approved and he should be released from custody as such. ply has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 8 and 9, i.e. State of Tripura and the Superintendent, Kendriya Sansodhanagar, Tripura, respectively. It is submitted therein and learned counsel for respondents No. 8 and 9 has not disputed that the petitioner has completed the requisite sentence for being eligible for premature release. It is also submitted antecedents report has been received from the Superintendent of Police, Mahendergarh on 28.01.2025, wherein no adverse thing/act has een reported against the petitioner and they have made a correspondence 8/3) with the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. India for obtaining view on premature release of the petitioner. It is further petitioner for premature release shall be again referred to upcoming meeting of State Level Committee for examining -2- 2). The petitioner had filed an appeal in the shape of Original No. 1377 of 2011 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh but the same had been dismissed, vide order dated 03.05.2018 (Annexure P- The petitioner was transferred to District Jail, Narnaul, wherein he has Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as undergone and total fully covered under (Annexure P-6). Hence, the case of the petitioner for his premature release should be approved ply has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 8 and 9, i.e. State of Tripura and the Superintendent, Kendriya Sansodhanagar, Tripura, respectively. It is submitted therein and learned counsel for er has completed the lso submitted antecedents report has been received from the Superintendent of Police, Mahendergarh on 28.01.2025, wherein no adverse thing/act has een reported against the petitioner and they have made a correspondence 8/3) with the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. India for obtaining view on premature release of the petitioner. It is further again referred to upcoming meeting of State Level Committee for examining the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.01 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-8760 5. with a direction to the of the petitioner afresh for his premature release antecedent report this order. 6. decided by the respondents concerned, the petitioner is ordered to be released on special parole, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 26.03.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 8760-2024 (O&M) In view of the above position, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents-authorities of the petitioner afresh for his premature release antecedent report, within a period of two this order. Till the time, the case of the petitioner is consid decided by the respondents concerned, the petitioner is ordered to be released on special parole, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 26.03.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable - In view of the above position, the present petition is disposed of authorities to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh for his premature release in view of the aforesaid fresh months from the date of receipt of Till the time, the case of the petitioner is considered and finally decided by the respondents concerned, the petitioner is ordered to be released on special parole, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No -3- In view of the above position, the present petition is disposed of the case in view of the aforesaid fresh months from the date of receipt of ered and finally decided by the respondents concerned, the petitioner is ordered to be released on special parole, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.01 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document