Haider Ali v. State of Haryana and Others

o CRWP-8612-2024o o -1-o o o o

o o INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAo o o o AToCHANDIGARHo o o o o o oo CRWP-8612-2024o o o o DateoofoDecision:-oo18 !8 "!"#o o o HAIDER ALI o Petitione$o o o o o %s o o STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERSooooo o ...Respondentso o o CORA&:-ooHON'B(Eo&R) oJU)TICEoA&ARJOToBHATTIo o o P$esent:-o &$ o%a$in*e$o)in+,oRana-oA*.ocateofo$ot,eo/etitione$ oo &$ oA012ano)in+,-oAAG-oHa$0ana oo

oo A&ARJOToBHATTI-oJ oA&ARJOToBHATTI-oJ

¶1Petitioner has filed criminal writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.1 vide which case of petitioner for premature release has been rejected and deferred the case of petitioner for 2 years in contravention to the premature release policy dated 11.08.2008 endorsed on 13.08.2008 and further incarceration of petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice and with prayer for release of petitioner on interim bail till the final decision of the case of petitioner by the competent authority or any other direction which the Court may deem fit and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case. o

¶2Learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner was o CRWP-8612-2024o o -"-o o o o involved in FIR No.288 dated 19.08.2012 under Sections 376 (2) (f) of IPC, Police Station Surajkund, District Faridabad and he was convicted for life imprisonment vide judgment and order of sentence dated 30.03.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. Against the aforesaid judgment and order of sentence, petitioner has filed criminal appeal bearing CRA-D-727-DB-2016 which is pending for decision before this Court. Petitioner maintained good conduct in the jail while undergoing sentence and whenever he was released on parole. Premature release policy applicable to the petitioner dated 11.08.2008 endorsed on 13.08.2008 is Annexure P-1. The case of the petitioner was wrongly rejected without considering various judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In the case in hand, opinion of the Presiding Officer was sought under Section 432 (2) Cr.P.C. and it was opined that it is not safe for the public at large to release the life convict and to consider his case for premature release. Copy of order dated

06.08.2024 is Annexure P-2. The State Level Committee has passed the impugned order without application of mind and without considering the decision of this Court passed in CRWP-8232 of 2022 decided on 05.02.2024 (Annexure P-4). The Competent Authority has acted arbitrarily and deferred the case of petitioner for 2 years. In the absence of any specific provision in the said policy, competent authority could not arbitrarily defer the case of petitioner for consideration. Even otherwise, this Court has opined that opinion of Presiding Officer called for premature release of any prisoner is not binding. The conduct of petitioner remained satisfactory and he is not involved in any other criminal case. He has already undergone more than the sentence required as per policy dated 11.08.2008 endorsed on 13.08.2008. o o CRWP-8612-2024o o -3-o o o o

¶3Learned counsel representing petitioner has referred to the various judgments i.e. State of Haryana Vs. Jagdish AIR 2010 SC1690, Raj Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Writ Petition (Criminal) No.36 of 2022) decided on 06.02.2023 and many other judgments detailed in para No.8 of the petition. With these arguments, it is submitted that impugned order dated

06.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to premature release under the policy dated 11.08.2008 endorsed on

13.08.2008 (Annexure P-1). o

¶4Petition is opposed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 who also filed reply by way of affidavit. It is pointed out that present petitioner Haider Ali had committed rape upon prosecutrix aged about 6 years who was student of LKG on 19.08.2012 regarding which FIR No.288 dated 19.08.2012 was registered under Section 376 (2) (f) IPC, Police Surajkund, Faridabad and accordingly, he was sentenced to life imprisonment by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Faridabad on 30.03.2013. It is conceded that appeal against aforesaid judgment and order of sentence is pending before this Court. Petitioner cannot claim premature release as a matter of right unless the State Government commutes the sentence of life convict through a written order under the appropriate law. The State Government has framed premature release policy from time to time for consideration of cases of life convicts for their premature release. It is only the concession given by the State Government after considering the behaviour of convict inside the jail, gravity of offence, nature of offence, manner and circumstances under which the crime was committed along with other facts and circumstances of the o CRWP-8612-2024o o -4-o o o o case. It is pointed out that the convict cannot claim premature release as a matter of right. At the time of filing of reply, petitioner had undergone actual sentence for 10 years 4 months and 29 days and with remission 14 years 2 months. In reply, number of judgments are referred to. Case of petitioner was duly considered by the competent authority and it was rightly rejected by passing detailed speaking order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-2). It is submitted that petition filed by the petitioner deserves dismissal. o

¶5I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing State carefully and perused the record with their able assistance. In the case in hand, petitioner was convicted and sentenced life imprisonment in FIR No.288 dated

19.08.2012, under Sections 376 (2) (f) IPC, Police Station Surajkund Faridabad for committing rape of a child victim aged 6 years on 19.08.2012 who was student of LKG. Appeal against this judgment is pending before this High Court. Petitioner has sought premature release on the basis of Haryana Government Jail and Judicial Department notification dated

11.08.2008 endorsed on 13.08.2008 (Annexure P-1). As per this policy, case of the petitioner falls under Clause 'C' which runs as under:-o o Their cases may be considered after "Convicts who have been imprisoned for life having completion of 10 years actual committed a crime which is defined sentence including under trial in IPC as punishable with life period provided that the total period imprisonment but not with death of such sentence including sentence. o remission is not less than 14 years. o o oo o Asoperothisopolicy,othereoareootheroclausesoandoaccordingotoo o CRWP-8612-2024o o -5-o o o o clauseo-o'4'o'alloprematureoreleaseocasesounderothisopolicyoshallobeosubjectotoo Sectiono433-AoCr.P.C.'oo o o oo Underothisopolicy,ocaseoofopetitionerowasoconsideredobyoStateo LeveloCommitteeoasoperoRulesoandofinallyoitowasorejectedovideoorderodatedo

06.08.2024o(AnnexureoP-2).oo

6.o o NowothisoCourtoisorequiredotooseeoasotoowhetheropetitionerocano claimo prematureo releaseo undero theo aforesaido policyo (Annexureo P-1)o ono completionooforequisiteocustodyoperiodoasoaomatterooforightooronot.oStateo Governmentohasoformulatedotheosaidopolicyotoostreamlineotheoprocessoofocaseso ofoalloconvictsowhooareocoveredounderotheopolicy.oForodifferentocategoriesoofo offences,othereoisodifferentocriteria.oAsoreferredoabove,opresentopetitioneroiso coveredounderoClauseo-o'C'oandohadocompletedominimumorequisiteosentence,o asoaoresult,ohisocaseowasosentoforoconsiderationoforoprematureoreleaseobyotheo competentoauthorityoi.e.otheoCommitteeoformulatedounderotheosaidopolicy.o Factsoandocircumstancesoofoeachocaseohasotoobeoconsidered.oTheoCompetento Authorityo iso too exerciseo itso discretiono byo consideringo theo factso ando circumstancesoofotheocaseoandorequiredotoopassospeakingoandowelloreasonedo detailedoorder.oInotheocaseoinohand,oasoperotheoimpugnedoordero(AnnexureoP-2)ounderotheoprovisionoofoSectiono432o(2)oCr.P.C.oopinionoofoSuccessoroCourto wasoobtainedowhichowasoagainstotheopetitioneroforoconsideringohisocaseoforo prematureo release.o Stateo Levelo Committeeo consideredo allo theo factso ando circumstancesoofotheocaseoasowelloasotheooffenceocommittedobyotheopetitionero foro whicho heo waso convictedo byo theo trialo Courto ando finallyo Stateo Levelo Committeeocameotootheoconclusionotooconsiderotheocaseoofopresentopetitionero foroprematureoreleaseoaftero2oyears.ooWithothisoobservation,ocaseoforoprematureo SANDEEPgKUMAR 2025.08.22g18:21 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand integritygofgthisgdocument o CRWP-8612-2024o o -6-o o o o releaseowasorejected.oo

7.o o Therefore,oitocannotobeosaidothatoonocompletionooforequisiteo custodyo periodo aso detailedo undero theo aforesaido policyo datedo 11.08.2008o endorsedo ono 13.08.2008o (Annexureo P-1)o petitionero haso goto ao righto foro prematureorelease.oCourtoisotoostrikeobalanceobetweenotheofundamentalorightso ofotheopetitionero–oconvictoasowelloasoofotheovictimoandoherofamilyoandotheo impactoofocrimeoonotheosociety.ooTheoveryoobjectiveoofopunishmentoisotoo encourageoandoenforceoproperosocialobehaviour.oTheopunishmentohasopurposeo i.e.o deterrence,oino capacitation,o rehabilitation,o retributiono andorestitution.o CompetentoAuthorityoisorequiredotoopassoanoorderoafteroconsideringoallotheo aspectsoofotheocase.oo

8.oo o Ino lighto ofo this,o Io doo noto findo anyo illegalo oro irregularityo committedobyotheocompetentoauthorityobyorejectingotheocaseoofopetitioneroforo prematureorelease,owithoobservationotooreconsiderohisocaseoaftero2oyears.oo

9.o o Consequently,o petitiono filedo byo petitionero iso accordinglyo declined.ooooo o oo o o o oo oooo o o (AMARJOToBHATTI)o oo o o o o ooooooooooooooooo o o JUDGEoooooo

18.08.2025o o o o o o ooooooo sndo o Whetherospeaking/reasonedo :o Yes/No.o Whetheroreportableoo o :o Yes/Noo SANDEEPgKUMAR 2025.08.22g18:21 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand integritygofgthisgdocument