VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate order, writ or direction in the nature of habeas corpus holding that petitioners have completed the requisite period of sentence for grant of premature release and they are entitled to be released forthwith on usual terms and conditions as per the policy framed by State Govt. in exercise of power under Article 161 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE petitioners alongwith other co-accused were involved in FIR No. 539 dated 17.11.1986 registered at Police Station Bahadurgarh under Sections 302/307/324/148/149 IPC. At the time of commission of offence, petitioner-Ram Avtar was found to be aged 18 years whereas petitioner-Balwan was aged 21 years. The petitioners were awarded the following sentence :- "107. Each of the accused is sentenced to imprisonment for life under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Ram Singh 108. Each of the accused is sentenced to imprisonment for life under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Rattan Singh. 109. Each of the accused is sentenced to imprisonment for life under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Satbir." It was also ordered that all the sentences awarded in three different cases were to run concurrently. At the time of commission of offence, the instruction of the Haryana Govt. for pre-mature release dated 27.2.1984 was in force which provides that an adult male convicted to life imprisonment would be considered his pre-mature release after completion of 8-1/2 years of substantive sentence and 14 years sentence including remissions. However, during the conviction period, the State of Haryana issued instructions dated 12.4.2002 under which it was provided that the persons who were guilty of murder for more than two persons, were to be considered for pre-mature release after completion of 20 years actual sentence and 25 years total sentence with remission. The State of Haryana did not consider the case of the petitioner for pre- mature release keeping in view the fact that his case was not covered by instructions dated 12.4.2002 (Annexure P-3).
(3.) AGGRIEVED by this, the petitioner filed Crl. Misc. No. 30109-M of 2002 in this Court in which violation of instructions especially Clause 2(aa)(iii) was challenged being ultra vires the Constitution. The plea of the petitioner in the said case was that all convicts are required to be treated equally and there can be no discrimination between them. The petition filed by the petitioner was accepted by this Court on July 24, 2003 and operative part of the order passed in the case by this Court is as under :- "Consequently, in view of the discussion above, the petition is accepted and the petitioners are entitled for consideration of their cases for grant of pre-mature release on the expiry of 10 years of actual sentence and 14 years of sentence including remissions and their further detention, without consideration of their cases, is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India." ;