Dismissed

Hans Raj @ Hansa v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Aug 2012CRM-M/10860/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking premature release for a life convict. The court held that since the petitioner had not completed the mandatory 20-year sentence including remissions, he could not claim release as a matter of right, citing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; State authorities directed to decide on premature release upon completion of 20 years.

Hans Raj @ Hansa Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM M-10860 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM M-10860 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: August 01, 2012

Hans Raj @ Hansa

... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Haryana and others

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. A.S. Trikha, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Amit Goyal, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

Paramjeet Singh, J.

¶14

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for direction to the respondents to verify the total sentence undergone by the convict and release the petitioner since he has exceeded the prescribed sentence of 10/14 years for life imprisonment in a case FIR No.164 dated 20.11.1999 under Section 302 IPC registered at Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner before this Court against the conviction order, i.e. CRA No. 785-DB of 2002, was dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the case of the petitioner falls under clause (c) of latest policy dated 13.08.2008 relating to premature release of life convicts.

¶16

State has submitted its reply wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner has undergone only 11 years 09 months and 27 days actual sentence and 15 years and 12 days of total sentence including remissions and excluding parole period. As

¶17

CRM M-10860 of 2012

¶18

¶19

such, the premature release case of the petitioner is to be considered after 14 years of sentence and total of 20 years including remission which the petitioner has not undergone so far. As such, the petitioner cannot claim the premature release as a matter of right.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶21

Perusal of the record and the reply filed by the State indicate that the petitioner has not till date completed the total 20 years sentence including remissions. As such, he is not entitled to the benefit of premature release. Learned State counsel placed reliance on the decisions of Maru Ram vs.Union of India, AIR 1980

¶22

Supreme Court, 2147 and Mohd. Munna vs. Union of India and

¶23

others, (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases, 417 , herein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a sentence of imprisonment for life was nothing else than an imprisonment which lasts till the last breath. The petitioner cannot claim the premature release as a matter of right.

¶24

In view of the above, present petition is dismissed. However, the State authorities is directed to decide whether the petitioner should be prematurely released as and when 20 years of sentence is completed.

¶25

[Paramjeet Singh] Judge

¶26

August 01, 2012 vkd

Hans Raj @ Hansa v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hans Raj @ Hansa v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harmeet Singh @ Soni Vs State of Punjab

Deepak Singh @ Lalli Vs State of Punjab

Akbar Vs State of Haryana

Pushpinder Singh Vs Manjit Kaur

Anupam Aggarwal Vs Gopal Krishan Malhotra

Pavittar Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.