Dismissed

Vinod v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Sept 2012CRM-M/11355/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking premature release. Holding that kidnapping a minor for ransom constitutes a heinous crime under the 2000 policy, the court ruled that the petitioner was not eligible for release since he had not completed the requisite sentence period despite serving over 15 years.

What did the court decide?

dismissed; no direction issued to release the petitioner; right to move authorities again upon completion of requisite period is reserved.

Vinod Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

- 1-

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-11355 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-11355 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.09.2012

Vinod

........Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶9

........Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶12

Present : Mr. R.K. Bagga, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Girotra, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

PARAMJEET SINGH, J.

¶14

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 20.07.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.3 whereby claim of the petitioner for pre-mature release has been declined and prayer has been made for issuing direction to release the petitioner prematurely from jail.

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was convicted in FIR No.193 dated 30.05.1996 under Sections 363/365/386/364-A/34 IPC, Police Station City Panipat. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide judgment dated 20.04.2001 convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo sentence for four months RI. It is averred in the petition that the behavior and conduct of the petitioner during his jail term has remained satisfactory. There is no complaint after the conviction with regard to his conduct inside and outside the jail. It is submitted in the petition that the premature release case of the petitioner has

¶16

Crl. Misc. No. M-11355 of 2012

¶17

- 2-

¶18

been deferred as per the Government policy dated 13.08.2008. It is further submitted that the policy instructions, as were in existence on the date of conviction i.e. the policy dated 08.08.2000, will apply. It is further averred that the policy dated 13.08.2008 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. It is also averred in the petition that the petitioner has already undergone more than 15 years of actual sentence and more than 16 years of total sentence.

¶19

It is averred in the reply of the State that the petitioner was awarded RI for life besides the fine of Rs.1000/- and in default RI for four months. The premature release case of the petitioner has been considered by the authorities as per policy dated 08.08.2000 and has been rejected rightly as the petitioner along with nine other persons had kidnapped a child namely, Amit Kumar, aged 9 years on 25.09.1996 and he was released on 04.06.1996 after getting ransom of Rs.10,00,000/-. As per para 2(a) (xvii) of the policy dated 08.08.2000, the case of the petitioner falls in the category of henious crime. Hence case of the petitioner for premature release cannot be considered unless he completes 14 years of actual sentence and 20 years of total sentence, including remissions and after deducting parole period.

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State and have considered the contentions.

¶21

The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has completed more than 15 years actual sentence and more than 14 years as total sentence so the petitioner is entitled to premature release. As per Clause 2(a)(xvii) of the policy dated 08.08.2000, it has been mentioned that any other crime that State level committee considers to be henious for the reasons to be recorded in writing can be treated as henious

¶22

Crl. Misc. No. M-11355 of 2012 - 3- crime and in such cases premature release will be considered after completion of 14 years actual sentence and not less than 20 years, including remissions. The competent authority vide order dated 14.09.2009, deferred the case of the petitioner for premature release on the basis of State level committee recommendations. Thereafter, case was rejected vide impugned order dated 20.07.2010 (Annexure P-2) on the recommendations of the State level committee. The contention of the State counsel appears to be correct that petitioner had kidnapped a minor child and released him after getting ransom of Rs.10,00,000/-, which certainly comes in the definition of henious crime and the State level committee has not recommended the premature release of the petitioner.

¶23

In view of what has been stated above, I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioner falls in the definition of henious crime as mentioned in Clase 2(a)(xvii) of the policy dated 08.08.2000 hence the impugned order is legal and valid.

¶24

The present petition is dismissed. However, it will not bar the petitioner to move again before the authorities for release on completion of the requisite period.

¶25

(Paramjeet Singh) Judge

¶26

September 20, 2012 R.S.

Vinod v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amarinder Ubhi & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Baljit Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Banso Vs State of Punjab

Guman Singh Vs State of Pb.

Ratti Ram Vs State of Punjab

Sukhbir Singh Vs Jagdish Singh