Pohlu Alias Polu Ram v. State of Haryana and Others

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

¶1This common order shall dispose of all the above mentioned petitions as the issues for determination are similar in all cases.

¶2The present petitions are filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C') praying for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reconsider and decide the petitioners' case for premature release. FACTUAL BAC5GROUND

¶3CRWP  -8232-   2022   (Po914   ?Po14   Ra:):  The   petitioner   was convicted vide judgment dated 27.07.2007 in FIR No. 328 dated 20.09.1995 registered under Sections 302, 120-B, 148, 149 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station City Kaithal and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/148 IPC. The petitioner has undergone CRWP No. 8232 o" 2022 (O&M) -3-2024:PHHC:020181 actual sentence of 12 years, 10 months and 4 days and total sentence (including remission) of 16 years, 8 months and 18 days. The case of the petitioner is covered by Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002 which requires 14 years of actual imprisonment and 20 years of total imprisonment with remission for a case to be considered for pre-mature release. However, his request   was   denied   by   the   jail   authorities   vide   impugned   order   dated

14.10.2021 stating that the petitioner is a threat to the public safety and has not completed requisite sentence to be considered for pre-mature release. CRWP- 5189-2023 (Ra941 ? Raj$3):  The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 30.09.2010 in FIR No. 129 dated 15.02.2006 registered under Sections 302, 34, 120-B, 201, 202 of the IPC at Police Station City Gurgaon and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 16 years, 9 months and 4 days and total sentence (including remission) of 20 years 11 months and 26 days. The case of the petitioner is covered by Premature Release Policy dated 13.08.2008 which requires 14 years of actual imprisonment and 20 years of total imprisonment with remission for a case to be considered for pre-mature release. However, his request was deferred for two years from 30.09.2022 by the jail authorities vide impugned order dated 31.03.2023 stating that the petitioner was involved in eleven other criminal offences and has also committed jail offences. It was concluded that he is a hardened criminal with no potential of reformation. CRWP- 8889-2023 (A?a2): The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated

30.09.2010 in FIR No. 129 dated 15.02.2006 registered under Sections 302, 34, 120-B, 201, 202 of the IPC at Police Station City Gurugram and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 16 years, 5 months and 14 days and total sentence (including remission) of 21 CRWP No. 8232 o" 2022 (O&M) -4-2024:PHHC:020181 years 01 month and 5 days. The case of the petitioner is covered by Premature Release   Policy   dated   13.08.2008   which   requires   16   years   of   actual imprisonment and 20 years of total imprisonment with remission for a case to be considered for pre-mature release. However, his request was denied by the jail   authorities   vide   impugned   order   dated   07.08.2023   stating   that   the petitioner was involved in five other criminal offences and has committed a heinous crime. CRWP- 4607-2023 (Rajat):  The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 13.07.2009 in FIR No. 52 dated 15.01.2006 registered under Sections 302, 34, 120-B of the IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station City Gurugaon and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 15 years, 8 months and 10 days and total sentence (including remission) of 21 years 01 month and 29 days. The case of the petitioner is covered by Premature Release Policy dated 13.08.2008 which requires 14 years of actual imprisonment and 20 years of total imprisonment with remission for a case to be considered for pre-mature release. However, his request was deferred for two years from 30.09.2022 by the jail authorities vide impugned order dated 31.03.2023 stating that the petitioner is a hardened criminal with no potential for reformation. CRWP-711-2024 (Pa914):  The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated

27.04.1999 in FIR No. 124 dated 13.04.1991 registered under Sections 302, 326, 325, 148, 149 of the IPC at Police Station Nuh, Gurugram and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.  The petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 13 years, 5 months and 10 days and total sentence (including remission) of 17 years, 08 months and 08 days, as on 30.09.2023. The case of the petitioner is covered by Premature Release Policy dated 04.02.1993 which requires 14 CRWP No. 8232 o" 2022 (O&M) -5-2024:PHHC:020181 years total imprisonment with remission for a case to be considered for pre-mature release. However,  his request was deferred for one  years from

30.09.2023 by the jail authorities vide impugned order dated 11.12.2023 stating that the petitioner had absconded from parole for 11 years 3 months 1 day. CRWP- 7000-2022(Ba1Ea&t a1$a% V$c=y):. The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 28.07.2009 in FIR No. 331 dated 09.11.2006 registered under Sections 302, 120-B, 148, 149 of the IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police   Station   Sector   5,   Gurugram   and   sentenced   to   undergo   life imprisonment. The petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 14 years, 11 months and 13 days and total sentence (including remission) of 20 years, 08 months and 14 days. The case of the petitioner is covered by Premature Release   Policy   dated   13.08.2008   which   requires   20   years   of   actual imprisonment and 25 years of total imprisonment with remission for a case to be considered for pre-mature release. However, his request was denied by the jail   authorities   vide   impugned   order   dated   04.03.2022   stating   that   the petitioner has not completed requisite sentence to be considered for pre-mature release. CRWP- 428-2024 (Raje&2e/): The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 27.04.1999 in FIR No. 63 dated 14.04.2006 registered under Sections 302, 307 of the IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Bawani Khera, Bhiwani and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 17 years, 5 months and 13 days and total sentence (including remission) of 20 years and 2 days. The case of the petitioner is covered by Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002 which requires 14 years of actual imprisonment and 20 years of total imprisonment CRWP No. 8232 o" 2022 (O&M) -6-2024:PHHC:020181 with remission for a case to be considered for pre-mature release. However, his request was deferred for two years from 30.09.2023 by the jail authorities vide impugned order dated 11.12.2023 stating that the petitioner has committed double murder of his own mother and father, which is a grave and serious offence. CONTENTIONS

4.  CRWP -8232- 2022 (Po914 ?Po14 Ra:) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case of the petitioner is covered by Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002 which requires 14 years of actual imprisonment and 20 years of total imprisonment including remission for premature release but according to para 2(b) of the policy, adult life convicts undergoing life sentence for crimes not considered heinous are eligible for premature release after completion of 10 years of actual sentence and 14 years of total sentence including remission. The petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 13 years, 8 months and 1 day and total sentence of 15 years, 7 months and 17 days as on 25.07.2022 and is eligible for premature release according to the said policy.  The petitioner has displayed good behaviour while on parole/leave/furlough and has been issued recommendation letters dated 05.12.2020 by the Gram Panchayat, Rasida as well as by Pardhan, Sarpanch Association, Tehsil Narwana. He has also received an appreciation letter dated 13.12.2020 by Sri Guru Ravidass Sabha (Regd.), Panchkula. Without considering everything available on record, the impugned order unfairly regarded the petitioner being a threat to the society. The petitioner is entitled to be released according to the relevant policy and depriving him of the same would be violative of his rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. CRWP No. 8232 o" 2022 (O&M) -7-2024:PHHC:020181 He further submits that every convict is entitled to have same access to law and he is required to be treated equally both in procedure and substance of the law.   Similarly situated convicts have been granted the concession of premature release, therefore, since the petitioner satisfies the mandate of applicable policy, the State cannot indulge in favouritism and deny the same relief to the petitioner. CRWP- 5189-2023(Ra941 ? Raj$3) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has maintained good conduct in jail and has been acquitted in 7 of the cases lodged against him. The case of the petitioner was deferred by two years on the ground that the petitioner is a hardened criminal and beyond reformation, without citing reasons for such conclusion. According to the Premature Release Policy dated 13.08.2008, 14 years of actual imprisonment and 20 years of total imprisonment including remission is required for premature release. The petitioner has undergone total sentence of about 21 years and therefore, he is eligible for premature release. The petitioner is entitled to be released according to the relevant policy and depriving him of the same would be violative of his rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. CRWP- 8889-2023(A?a2) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has maintained good conduct in jail and has been acquitted in 3 out of the 5 cases lodged against him. The case of the petitioner was deferred by two years on the ground that the petitioner is a hardened criminal and beyond reformation, without citing reasons for such conclusion. According to the Premature Release Policy dated 13.08.2008, 14 years of actual imprisonment and 20 CRWP No. 8232 o" 2022 (O&M) -8-2024:PHHC:020181 years of total imprisonment including remission is required for premature release. The petitioner has undergone actual sentence of over 16 years 5 months and total sentence of about 21 year and therefore, he is eligible for premature release. However, he was denied premature release citing his involvement in 5 other cases and the heinous nature of the crime he has been sentenced for. The petitioner is entitled to be released according to the relevant policy and depriving him of the same would be  violative of his rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. CRWP- 4607-2023 (Rajat) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has maintained good conduct in jail and has been acquitted or discharged in all of the 11 cases lodged against him. The case of the petitioner was deferred by two years on the ground that the petitioner is a hardened criminal and beyond reformation, without citing reasons for such conclusion. According to the Premature Release Policy dated 13.08.2008, 14 years of actual imprisonment and 20 years of total imprisonment including remission is required for premature release. The petitioner has has undergone about 16 years of actual sentence and 21 years of total sentence and therefore, he is eligible for premature release. The petitioner is entitled to be released according to the relevant policy and depriving him of the same would be violative of his rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. CRWP-711-2024(Pa914) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has maintained good conduct in jail. During the period of parole overstayed by the petitioner, he was involved in FIR No. 271 dated 01.05.2003 under Sections 8/9 of the HGCP Act registered at PS City Gurugram in which he has already CRWP No. 8232 o" 2022 (O&M) -9-2024:PHHC:020181 served the sentence awarded to him.  The case of the petitioner was deferred by two years on the ground that the petitioner absconded from parole, however, since 2015 the petitioner has availed parole multiple times and never misused the concession. According to the Premature Release Policy dated

04.02.1993, 14 years of total imprisonment including remission of at least 6 years is required for premature release and the petitioner has undergone 17 years 8 months and 8 days of total sentence with remission, as on 30.09.2023. The case of the petitioner was deferred for one year vide impugned order dated

11.12.2023 on the ground of absconding from parole. Previously, in 2021 as well the State Level Committee had denied premature release to the petitioner vide order dated 22.03.2021 for the same reason. The petitioner is entitled to be released according to the relevant policy and depriving him of the same would be violative of his rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. CRWP- 7000-2022(Ba1Ea&t a1$a% V$c=y) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has maintained good conduct in jail and he has never outstayed the duration of the paroles and two furloughs he had availed till date. According to the Premature Release Policy dated 13.08.2008, 20 years of actual imprisonment and 25 years of total imprisonment including remission is required for premature release and the petitioner has undergone 14 years of actual imprisonment and 20 years of total imprisonment and as such, is eligible for the concession. The case of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that he is a hardened criminal and would be a danger to public order and safety. The petitioner is entitled to be released according to the relevant policy and depriving him of CRWP No. 8232 o" 2022 (O&M) -10-2024:PHHC:020181 the same would be  violative of his rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. CRWP- 428-2024 (Raje&2e/) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case of the petitioner is covered by Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002 which requires 20 years of total imprisonment including remission for premature release and the petitioner has undergone a total sentence of 20 years as on

25.07.2022 and is eligible for premature release according to the said policy. The case of the petitioner was deferred to two years vide impugned order on the ground that the petitioner had committed a grave and serious offence i.e a double murder of his own parents. The petitioner is entitled to be released according to the relevant policy and depriving him of the same would be violative of his rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶5Per contra learned State counsel submits that the petitioners have been convicted for grave and serious offences and have not been granted the concession of premature release as there are serious concerns about them for disturbing the public peace and harmony.  However, she cannot controvert with certitude that no similarly situated convict has been released under the applicable policy for premature release.

¶6Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, Advocate, who was appointed as amicus curiae, submits that the State must abide by the terms of policy, which was in force on the date of conviction and it is not open to the State to adopt an arbitrary yardstick by picking up cases for premature release of similarly situated convicts and deny the same relief to the petitioners. CRWP No. 8232 o" 2022 (O&M) -11-2024:PHHC:020181 OB0ER=ATION0 AN! ANA/ 0I0

¶6Havin/ heard the learned !ounsel for the parties and the amicus curiae and perused the re!ord  ith their a;le assistan!e( this )ourt is of the opinion that the poli!y instituted ;y the State for premature release is eBually appli!a;le to all !onvi!ts and dire!tly impa!ts their fundamental ri/hts as enshrined under Arti!les 14( 13 and #1 of the )onstitution of =ndia. Dn!e eli/i;le to ;e !onsidered for premature release a!!ordin/ to the appli!a;le poli!y( the State !annot deny them this !on!ession  ithout re!ordin/ due reasons for the same. :he State is duty ;ound to a!t fairly and to pro!eed a!!ordin/ to the poli!y formulated ;y it in a manner that does not dis!riminate ;et een similarly situated persons in a;sen!e of an intelli/i;le differentia. +on-ar;itrariness is a fa!et in Arti!le 14 of the )onstitution of =ndia and the State and all its a/en!ies are reBuired to a;ide ;y it. :he State !annot indul/e in !herry pi!"in/ and only provide the !on!ession of premature release to a sele!t fe  out of the pool of similarly situated !onvi!ts and su!h approa!h is hi/hly ineBuities. ,.  A t o 9ud/e Ben!h of the Hon?;le Supreme )ourt in Joseph Vs. The State of Kerala and others in *rit Petition 0)riminal1 +o.2#. of #.## de!ided on #1..3.#.#-( #.#- S)) DnCine S) 1#11( spea"in/ throu/h 9usti!e S. Ravindra Bhat has held as under%- "28. To issue a policy directive, or guidelines, over and above the Act and Rules framed (where the latter forms part and parcel of the former), and 14 undermine what they encapsulate, cannot be countenanced. Blanket exclusion of certain offences, from the scope of grant of remission, especially by way of an executive policy, is not only arbitrary, but turns the ideals of reformation that run through our criminal justice system, on its head. Numerous judgments of this court, have elaborated on the penological goal of reformation and rehabilitation, being CRWP No. 8232 o" 2022 (O&M) -1#- 2024:PHHC:020181 the cornerstone of our criminal justice system, rather than retribution. The impact of applying such an executive instruction/guideline to guide the executive's discretion would be that routinely, any progress made by a long+term convict would be rendered naught, leaving them feeling hopeless, and condemned to an indefinite period of incarceration. While the sentencing courts may, in light of this court's majority judgment in Sriharan (supra), now impose term sentences (in excess of 14 or 20 years) for crimes that are specially heinous, but not reaching the level of 'rarest of rare' (warranting the death penalty), the state government cannot – especially by way of executive instruction, take on such a role, for crimes as it deems fit. xxxxx xxxxx

37.Classifying + to use a better word, typecasting convicts, through guidelines which are inflexible, based on their crime committed in the distant past can result in the real danger of overlooking the reformative potential of each individual convict. Grouping types of convicts, based on the offences they were found to have committed, as a starting point, may be justified. However, the prison laws in India + read with Articles 72 and 161 + encapsulate a strong underlying reformative purpose. The practical impact of a guideline, which bars consideration of a premature release request by a convict who has served over 20 or 25 years, based entirely on the nature of crime committed in the distant past, would be to crush the life force out of such individual, altogether. Thus, for instance, a 19 or 20 year old individual convicted for a crime, which finds place in the list which bars premature release, altogether, would mean that such person would never see freedom, and would die within the prison walls. There is a peculiarity of continuing to imprison one who committed a crime years earlier who might well have changed totally since that time. This is the condition of many people serving very long sentences. They may have killed someone (or done something much less serious, such as commit a narcotic drug related offences or be serving a life sentence for other non+violent crimes) as young individuals and remain incarcerated 20 or more years later. Regardless of the morality of continued punishment, one may question its rationality. The question is, what is achieved by continuing to punish a person who recognises the wrongness of what they have done, who no longer identifies with it, and who bears little resemblance to the person they were yearsPANKAJ KUMAR CRWP No. 8232 o" 2022 (O&M) -1-- 2024:PHHC:020181 earlier? It is tempting to say that they are no longer the same person. Yet, the insistence of guidelines, obdurately, to not look beyond the red lines drawn by it and continue in denial to consider the real impact of prison good behavior, and other relevant factors (to ensure that such individual has been rid of the likelihood of causing harm to society) results in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Excluding the relief of premature release to prisoners who have served extremely long periods of incarceration, not only crushes their spirit, and instils despair, but signifies society's resolve to be harsh and unforgiving. The idea of rewarding, a prisoner for good conduct is entirely negated.

¶38In the petitioner's case, the 1958 Rules are clear + a life sentence, is deemed to be 20 years of incarceration. After this, the prisoner is entitled to premature release. The guidelines issued by the NHRC pointed out to us by the counsel for the petitioner, are also relevant to consider + that of mandating release, after serving 25 years as sentence (even in heinous crimes). At this juncture, redirecting the petitioner who has already undergone over 26 years of incarceration (and over 35 years of punishment with remission), before us to undergo, yet again, consideration before the Advisory Board, and thereafter, the state government for premature release + would be a cruel outcome, like being granted only a salve to fight a raging fire, in the name of procedure. The grand vision of the rule of law and the idea of fairness is then swept away, at the altar of procedure + which this court has repeatedly held to be a "handmaiden of justice". A @ull Ben!h of the Hon?;le Supreme )ourt in R"9>68"@ =(. T4$ 0#"#$ o" U##"@ P@"%$(4 AIR 2023 0C 2,*( spea"in/ throu/h )hief 9usti!e 7hananjaya '. )handra!hud( has held as under% "13. The State having formulated Rules and a Standing Policy for deciding cases of premature release, it is bound by its own formulations of law. Since there are legal provisions which hold the field, it is not open to the State to adopt an arbitrary yardstick for picking up cases for premature release. It must strictly abide by the terms of its policies bearing in mind the fundamental principle of law that each case for premature release has to be decided on the basis of the legal position as it stands on the date of the conviction subject to a more beneficial regime being provided in terms of a subsequent policy determination. CRWP No. 8232 o" 2022 (O&M) -14-2024:PHHC:020181 The provisions of the law must be applied equally to all persons. Moreover, those provisions have to be applied efficiently and transparently so as to obviate the grievance that the policy is being applied unevenly to similarly circumstanced persons. An arbitrary method adopted by the State is liable to grave abuse and is liable to lead to a situation where persons lacking resources, education and awareness suffer the most.

¶3 =t appears that !ertain petitioners  ere denied premature release on the /round that they  ere li"ely to ;e a threat to the so!iety. Ho ever( the reasons for !on!ludin/ this are !onspi!uously a;sent from the orders. :he petitioners have already ;een punished on!e for the !rime they have ;een !onvi!ted for and !itin/ the same as a means to deny them premature release ould amount to dou;le jeopardy. :here is no reason to deny premature release to petitioners  ho have maintained /ood ;ehaviour and availed multiple paroles and furlou/hs and surrendered on time(  ithout re!ordin/ of any unto ard in!idents.

1.. &oreover( a )o-ordinate ;en!h of this )ourt in 06A4"(4 :. 0#"#$ o" H"@?")" 1++4(3) R.C.R.(C@'8')"5) 48+ has held that involvement in other offen!es  ould not ;e a /round to deny the !on!ession of premature release. Spea"in/ throu/h 9usti!e V.A. 9hanji( the follo in/  as o;served% E4. It has been held in Lila Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988(1) RCR 28 that reasoning given in the order declining premature release to the petitioner+convict that he had committed jail offences and his release will prove hazardous to peace and tranquillity in the locality are no legal reasons to decline premature release. The reasoning was on the basis that the convict has already undergone imprisonment for committing jail offences and there is no material to hold that his release is likely to prove hazardous to peace and tranquillity in the locality. Thus, it was held that the jail offences committed by the convict for which he has already been punished, cannot be taken into consideration while deciding the case of the petitioner for his premature release." CRWP No. 8232 o" 2022 (O&M) -15-2024:PHHC:020181 Reliance in this regard can also be placed on 5a:a1 5a&t T$Ea/$

3. State o" P4&jab a&2 ot9e/% 2014(2) R.C.R.(C/$:$&a1) 940 and L$1a S$&g9

3. State o" P4&jab 1988(1)R.C.R(C/$:$&a1) 28.  A perusal of the policies dated 04.02.1993, 12.04.2002 and 13.08.2008 indicates that involvement in other criminal cases does not make an applicant ineligible for grant of premature release.

¶11The entire edifice of exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial power rests on the foundation of giving reasoned and detailed orders. It is a fundamental principle of natural justice and ensures that there is proper and due application of mind while exercising said power. Therefore, the practice of arbitrarily categorising convicts as threats to society or indiscriminately deferring their cases for premature release needs to be strongly discouraged. It is expedient that the competent authority does  not act in a ritualistic fashion and application of mind is discernable.

¶12A two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State o" Ha/ya&a V%. Jag2$%9 AIR 2010 SC 1690, speaking through Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan laid down the parameters to consider while deciding upon the question of premature release: "38. At the time of considering the case of pre-mature release of a life convict, the authorities may require to consider his case mainly taking into consideration

1. whether the offence was an individual act of crime without affecting the society at large;

¶2    whether   there  was   any   chance   of  future   recurrence   of committing a crime;

3.  whether the convict had lost his potentiality in committing the crime;

4.  whether there was any fruitful purpose of confining the convict any more;

5.  the socio-economic condition of the convict's family and other similar circumstances." (enumeration added) CRWP No. 8232 o" 2022 (O&M) -15-2024:PHHC:020181 1-. *hile the petitioners herein have !ommitted /rave and serious offen!es( on!e a duly ena!ted poli!y is in eFisten!e( it must ;e honoured and applied to ea!h !ase in its letter and spirit. The theory of reformation and rehabilitation that emerged in the 18th century aims at separating the criminal from the crime and compels us to look beyond the one fateful act committed by him. In a civilised society like ours, it would be truly unfortunate if an offender is not given the opportunity to realise and fully fathom his mistake and channel that awareness into making fruitful contributions in society. The peno-correctional institutes must not only be looked at as a place where punishment is carried out, but also a place of rehabilitation. The criminal justice dispensation system must be guided by the idea of allowing the offender to rectify his wrong and reintegrate into the society as a law abiding member once the sentence is served. The idea was well explained Justice Krishna Iyer in Mohammad Giasuddin :. 0#"#$ o" A)%4@" P@"%$(4 (1+--) 3 0CC 28-  here he stated that  "the sub+culture that leads to anti+social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re+culturalisation".

¶14 A t o 9ud/e ;en!h of the Hon?;le Supreme )ourt in R":"%" 0"('>"5" :. 0#"#$ o" AP AIR 201- 0C 11,,1 has reiterated that the imposition of senten!e also serves a so!ial purpose as it a!ts as a deterrent ;y ma"in/ the a!!used realise the dama/e !aused not only to the vi!tim ;ut also to the so!iety at lar/e. :he la  in this re/ard is  ell settled that opportunities of reformation must ;e /ranted and su!h dis!retion is to ;e eFer!ised ;y evaluatin/ all attendin/ !ir!umstan!es of ea!h !ase ;y noti!in/ the nature of the !rime( the manner in  hi!h the !rime  as !ommitted and the !ondu!t of the a!!used to stri"e a ;alan!e ;et een the effi!a!y of la  and the !han!es of reformation of the a!!used. A t o 9ud/e ;en!h of the Hon?;le Supreme )ourt in 2"@"89'# CRWP No. 8232 o" 2022 (O&M) -16-2024:PHHC:020181 0')B4 :. 0#"#$ (!$54' A%8).)( spea"in/ throu/h 9usti!e 7.P. &ohapatra( made the follo in/ o;servations% "Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such a case; a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law."

¶12A three 9ud/e ;en!h of the Hon?;le Supreme )ourt in R"9$)%@" P@"54"%@"o W"()'> :. 0#"#$ o" M"4"@"(4#@"1 (201+) 12 0CC 4,0( spea"in/ throu/h 9usti!e &adan B. Co"ur made the follo in/ o;servations% "47. Consideration of the reformation, rehabilitation and reintegration of the convict into society cannot be overemphasised. Until Bachan Singh, the emphasis given by the courts was primarily on the nature of the crime, its brutality and severity. Bachan Singh placed the sentencing process into perspective and introduced the necessity of considering the reformation or rehabilitation of the convict. Despite the view expressed by the Constitution Bench, there have been several instances, some of which have been pointed out in Bariyar and in Sangeet v. State of Haryana where there is a tendency to give primacy to the crime and consider the criminal in a somewhat secondary manner. As observed in Sangeet, "In the sentencing process, both the crime and the criminal are equally important." Therefore, we should not forget that the criminal, however ruthless he might be, is nevertheless a human being and is entitled to a life of dignity notwithstanding his crime. Therefore, it is for the prosecution and the courts to determine whether such a person, notwithstanding his crime, CRWP No. 8232 o" 2022 (O&M) -1,- 2024:PHHC:020181 can be reformed and rehabilitated. To obtain and analyse this information is certainly not an easy task but must nevertheless be undertaken. The process of rehabilitation is also not a simple one since it involves social reintegration of the convict into society. Of course, notwithstanding any information made available and its analysis by experts coupled with the evidence on record, there could be instances where the social reintegration of the convict may not be possible. If that should happen, the option of a long duration of imprisonment is permissible.G

¶15 =t  ould ;e naive to hope for a so!iety  ithout !rime( ho ever( it ould ;e in line  ith the  elfarist approa!h of State to ma"e an attempt to ards reha;ilitation of offenders and allo  them to reshape themselves as a fun!tional mem;er of the so!iety. :he overar!hin/ /oal of punishment is deterren!e and the sentiment must not ;e  eaponised to /lamorise sava/e justi!e. People from all  al"s of life hold the idea of li;erty !lose to their heart and have histori!ally done everythin/ in their po er to not part from it. @or a !onvi!t servin/ a life senten!e( li;erty has to ;e the most pre!ious of possessions. =t should not ;e assumed that all !onvi!ts  hen released  ill unleash reven/e onto their prose!utors. :he !onvi!t?s !ondu!t in jail( state of mind( /ravity of the offen!e( so!ial ;a!"/round and ;ehaviour  hile on parole must ;e duly !onsidered ;efore de!idin/ upon the Buestion of his premature release.  =n the  ords of 9usti!e Arishna =yer( ESocial Justice is the signature tune of our Constitution and the little man in peril of losing his liberty is the consumer of Social Justice." CONC/U0ION

¶16Havin/ heard learned !ounsel for the parties and after perusin/ the re!ord   ith   their   a;le   assistan!e(   /rounds   on   hi!h   the   !ases   of   the petitionertis1  ere reje!ted( are !ate/orized as under%- CRWP No. 8232 o" 2022 (O&M) -19-2024:PHHC:020181

(i) I&3o13e:e&t $& ot9e/ ca%e% o/ ja$1 o""e&ce%. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lila Singh's case, Subhash's case and Kamal Kant Tiwari's case (supra), involvement of the convict in other cases or jail offences cannot be a ground to deny the concession of premature release.

(ii) P/e:at4/e /e1ea%e o" co&3$ct% Eo412 Ao%e t9/eat to %ec4/$ty. In case, the convict has been periodically released on furlough/parole and during his release, he did not indulge in any such activity which disturbed the public peace or posed a threat to the society, rejection of his application for premature release on the ground that same would pose to be a serious threat to the society, is not sustainable.

(iii) De"e//e2 $& t9e ab%e&ce o" a&y %Aec$"$c A/o3$%$o& $& t9e aAA1$cab1e   Ao1$cy   o/   /ejecte2/2e"e//e2   o&   t9e   g/o4&2   o" o""e&ce% be$&g g/a3e a&2 %e/$o4% $& &at4/e. In the absence of any specific provision in the applicable policy at the time of conviction of the convict, the competent authority cannot act arbitrarily and defer the cases of prisoners for premature release especially by applying the rigours of change of policy, in view of the law laid down in Rajkumar's case (supra).

(iv)     OA$&$o& o" P/e%$2$&g O""$ce/%. The concession of premature release cannot be denied because the case was not recommended by the Presiding Officer as his opinion is not binding. The Presiding Officers are required to scrupulously follow the instructions issued by the Registrar CRWP No. 8232 o" 2022 (O&M) -20-2024:PHHC:020181 vide   letter   bearing   No.622/Spl/Gnz   11.17,   with   regard   to rendering the opinion in terms of Section 432(2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶18In view of the fact that every day this Court comes across numerous petitions seeking premature release of the convicts/petitioners in terms of applicable policy whose cases have been rejected on the grounds mentioned above, the following directions are issued:-

(a) Secretaries, District Legal Services Authority across the States   of   Punjab   and   Haryana   and   the   Union  Territory   of Chandigarh are directed to visit the jail premises falling under their  jurisdiction   periodically   and   identify   such   convicts undergoing life imprisonment, who are eligible for premature release   in   terms   of   applicable   policy   at   the   time   of   their conviction, but their cases were rejected on the grounds listed in paragraph No.17.

(b) Thereafter, family members of the convicts, who are eligible for premature release, will be called upon by the Secretaries, District Legal Services Authorities and would be informed about the directions issued by this Court and provide legal assistance in filing appropriate  applications   for   expeditious   disposal   their cases for premature release.

(c) If the case of any convict is pending consideration with the competent authority for more than six months, he is required to be released on interim bail, in view of the direction issued by this Court in Pawan Kumar Vs. D.K. Tiwari and another, COCP No. 2020 of 2022 decided on 30.01.2023. CRWP No. 8232 o" 2022 (O&M) -21-2024:PHHC:020181

¶19In view of the above, impugned orders challenged in all the petitions are set aside and the competent authorities are directed to consider the cases of the petitioner(s) afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in view of the directions issued by this Court supra.

¶20This   Court   records   its   deep   appreciation   for   the   assistance provided by Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate as amicus curiae.

¶21All the petitions are disposed of with the above directions.

¶22Registry is directed to circulate a copy of this judgment to the Secretaries,  District Legal Services Authority across the States of Punjab and Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh for information and due compliance.

¶23Registry is also directed to circulate a copy of this judgment to the Home Secretaries for the States of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh for information and due compliance. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Feb/4a/y 05, 2024 Pankaj*

CRWP No. 8232 o" 2022 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:020181 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No. 8232 o" 2022 (O&M) Date o" 2ec$%$o&: 05.02.2024 Pohlu @Polu Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondent 2. CRWP No.5189 o" 2023 (O&M) Rahul @ Rajiv ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondent 3. CRWP No.8889 o" 2023 (O&M) Azad ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondent 4. CRWP No.4607 o" 2023 (O&M) Rajat ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondent 5. CRWP No.711 o" 2024 (O&M) Pahlu ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondent 6. CRWP No.7000 o" 2022 (O&M) Balwant alias Vicky ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondent 7. CRWP No.428 o" 2024 (O&M) Rajender ...Petitioner CRWP No. 8232 o" 2022 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:020181 Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR *** Present: - Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner in CRWP No.8232 of 2022. Mr. Varinder Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CRWP Nos.5189, 4607, 711 of 2023 and 428 of 2024. Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CRWP Nos.7000 of 2022 and 8889 of 2023. Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate Amicus Curiae. ***