Kailash Devi vs State Of Haryana & Ors.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

Criminal Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 187(2)(b)(ii) of the Haryana Prisons Rules, 2022, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated 05.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the State Level Committee, whereby the petitioner’s case for premature release has been rejected and consideration thereof deferred for a further period of two years. The impugned order is assailed as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the statutory scheme embodied in Rule 187(2)(b)(ii) of the Haryana Prisons Rules, 2022, inasmuch as the petitioner has already undergone the requisite period of sentence prescribed thereunder and is thus stated to have become eligible for consideration for premature release. It is further contended that the impugned decision proceeds upon an erroneous interpretation and application of Rule 187(2)(b)(ii) and subjects the petitioner to continued incarceration without due justification, thereby infringing her constitutional and statutory rights and, according to the petitioner, resulting in impermissible re-litigation of the very circumstances forming the basis of her conviction.

The petitioner accordingly seeks a direction for her premature release in accordance with Rule 187(2)(b)(ii) of the Haryana Prisons Rules, 2022, particularly in view of the judgments of this Court in Pohlu @ Polu Ram vs. State of Haryana and Others, CRWP No.8232 of 2022, decided on 05.02.2024, and Raju @ Rajesh vs. State of Haryana and Others, CRWP No.2160 of 2024, decided on 11.03.2024.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner remission, thereby satisfying the eligibility requirement under Rule 187(2) (b)(ii) of the Haryana Prisons Rules, 2022. Her conduct for the preceding five years has remained “Good” under Rule 187(2)(4), with no subsequent case or adverse circumstance disentitling her from premature release. She has also participated in rehabilitation activities and is neither a Hardcore nor a hardened criminal. Reliance is placed upon Pohlu @ Polu Ram vs. State of Haryana and Others, CRWP No.8232 of 2022, decided on 05.02.2024, and Raju @ Rajesh vs. State of Haryana and Others, CRWP No.2160 of 2024, decided on 11.03.2024, to contend that the impugned order is unsustainable and warrants interference. Accordingly, setting aside of the impugned order and appropriate consequential directions have been prayed for.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the present petition and supports the impugned recommendation, submitting that the same has been rendered after due consideration of the relevant factual and legal circumstances and suffers from neither any illegality, arbitrariness nor procedural infirmity warranting interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissal of the present petition has accordingly been prayed for.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon meticulous examination of the record with their able assistance, it is evident that, as on the date of the impugned order, the petitioner had undergone 12 years, 01 month and 26 days of actual sentence, whereas her total sentence, inclusive of remission, stood at 19 years, 02 months and 09 days. The case of the petitioner is required to be considered in the backdrop of the Haryana Government Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 30.12.2022 (Paus 9, 1944 Saka), Part-2-A. Clause XII thereof specifically refers to the category of “murder of more than two persons in one case”. However, a careful consideration of the relevant provisions of the policy shows that the case of the petitioner does not fall within any of the categories enumerated under Clause 2-A thereof and, rather, is liable to be considered under Clause 2-B. The distinction is material, as the applicability of the more stringent parameters under Clause 2-A cannot be presumed or extended beyond the categories expressly contemplated by the policy.

It is further significant that the impugned order does not record any adverse finding regarding the conduct of the petitioner. On the contrary, there is no finding that her conduct during the relevant period was bad or otherwise disentitled her from consideration for premature release. Thus, the impugned decision does not appear to have taken into account, in the proper perspective, the petitioner’s actual period of incarceration, the remission earned by her, the applicable classification under the policy and the absence of any adverse finding regarding her conduct. The impugned order, having proceeded without correctly appreciating the applicable provision of the policy, therefore, suffers from a material infirmity warranting interference. Accordingly the present petition is disposed of and the impugned order is set aside and the competent Authorities are directed to reconsider the petitioner’s case afresh, strictly in accordance with the applicable policy and the observations made herein, by passing a fresh, reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously and, in any event, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.