Allowed

Naresh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2008CRM-M/32628/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition and directed the competent authority to comply with a previous order remanding premature release consideration orders in a lifer's case. An interim measure was granted releasing the petitioner forthwith subject to surety due to the authority's dereliction.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; competent authority directed to comply with previous order within one month; petitioner to be released forthwith subject to surety.

Naresh Vs State of Haryana — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No.M-32628 of 2008

¶2

-1-

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

Criminal Misc. No.M-32628 of 2008 Date of decision : 11.12.2008

Naresh

. ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND

¶12

Present: Mr.V.K.Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

S. D. ANAND, J.

¶14

Notice of motion.

¶15

On the asking of the Court of the Court, Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents.

¶16

The petitioner, a lifer in case FIR No. 113 dated 31.5.1994, Police Station, Mahan following his conviction under Sections 302/149, 323/149, 325/149 and 307/149 IPC on 12.11.1998, had filed Criminal Misc. No.M-195599 of 2008 to obtain quashment of order dated 17.7.2008 vide which his premature release plea had been declined by the competent authority by holding that the policy in currency on the date of consideration would hold the fort. That view of the competent authority was quashed by this Court on 30.10.2008. It was held by this Court in the course of the order that the view taken by the competent authority was not in accord with the judgment rendered by the Apex court in Mahender Singh's case. It was further held, in the course of that order that the case

¶17

Criminal Misc. No.M-32628 of 2008

¶18

-2-

¶19

*******

¶20

of the petitioner was within the ambit of clause (b) of the policy which pertained to the cases which may be considered after completion of 10 years of actual sentence including under trial period provided the total period of such sentence including remissions was not less than 14 years. It was observed by this Court that the charge upheld against the petitioner, who was convicted on an allegation of having murdered one person, could not be described to be a crime of heinous character. It was further noticed by this Court that there were no attendant circumstances either on the basis whereof the State could he heard to argue that the offence, for which the petitioner got convicted, was heinous. This Court directed the competent authority to reconsider the premature release of the petitioner in the light of the observations made by this Court in the course of paras 9 and 10 of that judgment within fifteen days from the date of order. Inspite thereof, order dated 30.10.2008 has not been complied with till date.

¶21

The learned State counsel is not in a position to explain the non-compliance thereof.

¶22

Needless to indicate, each order passed by a Judicial Authority has to be faithfully complied with by every public authority.

¶23

The petition shall stand allowed. The competent authority is directed to comply with the order dated 30.10.2008 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. M-19599 of 2008 (Annexure P-6) within one month from today.

¶24

However, in view of the fact that release of the petitioner has been delayed on account of dereliction on the part of the competent authority and for no fault of the petitioner in any case, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released forthwith, as an interim measure. The release shall be subject to his furnishing of adequate surety etc. undertaking the

¶25

Criminal Misc. No.M-32628 of 2008

¶26

-3-

¶27

*******

¶28

return to the law subject to ultimate decision in the matter. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the competent authority.

¶29

Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary.

¶30

December 11, 2008 Pka

¶31

(S.D. ANAND) JUDGE

Naresh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajinder Singh Vs Pb.St.

Vir Chand Goyal Vs Sr. Supdt. of Police, Kapurthala

Sher Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Naresh Chand Vs State of Haryana

Harchand Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Bhim Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.