Harjinder Kaur @ Rano Vs State of Punjab etc.

The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for issuance of appropriate direction to respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for premature release.

¶17

Heard.

¶18

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has become eligible for premature release as per policy of the Government dated 8.8.2011, Annexure P1, and that his case for premature release was also initiated by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, i.e., respondent no.3 vide letter Nos.G.I./J-4 3876 and 3877, dated 2.12.2011 and, however, no order has been passed by the competent authority on the

¶19

same despite the fact that more than seven months have expired.

¶20

In view of these facts, and without going into the merits of the

¶21

Crl.M.No.M-21121 of 2012(O&M)

¶22

-2-

¶23

claim raised by the petitioner, this petition is disposed of with direction to respondents to pass appropriate order, as per law and rules on the subject, on the request of petitioner, as his case has already been stated to be initiated by respondent no.3 vide letter Nos. G.I./J-4 3876 and 3877 dated 2.12.2011, expeditiously and preferably within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶24

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

¶25

7.8.2012 meenu

Harjinder Kaur @ Rano v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjinder Kaur @ Rano v. State of Punjab etc.

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

Ram Lal Vs State of Haryana

Sanwalia Vs Sham Lal & Anr.

Ritu Kapoor Vs State of Punjab

Darbara Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rajwinder Singh @ Raju Vs State of Punjab

Pardeep Kumar Verma Vs Janak Raj Sharma