127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-8687-2025 Date of Decision:13.08.2025 Ravinder @ Ninna …Petitioner vs. State of Haryana and Others …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Varinder Singh Rana, Advocate with Mr. Jitesh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajinder Kumar Banku, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. ***** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.1, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of premature release has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while rejecting the case of the petitioner, the respondents have violated the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in ‘State of Haryana Vs. Jagdish’ AIR 2010 SC 1690 and ‘Raj Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh’, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.36 of 2022 decided on 06.02.2023 and the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in CRWP No.8232 of 2022 ‘Pohlu @ Polu Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Others’.He further contends that Gaurav Rana @ Kala, co-convict of the petitioner has been given benefit of Clause (b) of the policy dated 13.08.2008 (P-1). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at this stage, he HITESH 2025.08.13 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRWP-8687-2025 -2 shall be satisfied in case appropriate directions are issued to respondent No.1. to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the above referred judgments. 4. Learned State counsel has also no serious objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. In view of the submissions made by the parties, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner for premature release in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in ‘State of Haryana Vs. Jagdish’ AIR 2010 SC 1690 and ‘Raj Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh’, Writ petition (Criminal) No.36 of 2022 decided on 06.02.2023 and para 17 of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in CRWP No.8232 of 2022 ‘Pohlu @ Polu Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Others’ 6. Needless to observe that respondent No.1 shall pass a reasoned and speaking order by taking into consideration the submissions made by the petitioner in the representation, within a period of two months from today. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 13.08.2025 JUDGE hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HITESH 2025.08.13 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh