ANITA CHAUDHRY, J. - (1.) THE prayer made in the instant criminal writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of directions to respondent No.1 to re -consider the premature release case of the petitioner, which has been recommended by Director General of Police (Prisons), Punjab.
(2.) THE trial of the petitioner in case FIR No. 47 dated 08.07.1996, registered under Sections 302, 307, 436 and 449 IPC, Police Station Nathana, District Bathinda had culminated into his conviction for having committed triple murder and was substantively awarded life sentence with fine under different heads, vide judgment dated 07.10.1997. The appeals filed by him were dismissed uptill the Hon'ble Apex Court. The grouse of the petitioner is that despite having undergone incarceration of about fifteen and a half years and about twenty two years with remissions as on date, his case for pre -mature release has been declined by the authorities vide order dated 26.7.2012/8.8.2012. The further grievance of the petitioner is that his request for reconsideration of his premature release has also been rejected by the authorities in the wake of policy dated 04.04.2013, which envisages consideration of request only after lapse of two years from the date of earlier rejection, whereas the policy dated 04.04.2013 does not apply to his case. In the reply filed by the State, it has been admitted that earlier the premature release case of the petitioner was rejected by the State Government. It has been averred that his case for premature release was sent to the Addl. Director General of Police (Prisons), Punjab, Chandigarh, on 26.03.2013, but the same was not accepted vide memo dated 27.03.2014, on the ground that it could be reconsidered only after lapse of two years of dismissal of earlier premature release case as per policy dated
(3.) 04.2013. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel. It is not the case of the respondents that the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner does not entitle him for consideration of his case for premature release. The period of custody of about fifteen and a half years and about twenty two years with remissions as on date is not disputed by the respondents. The only impediment, according to them, is the new policy which came into existence on 04.04.2013 and the case of the petitioner would now be considered two years after the rejection of earlier request for premature release.;