Mukesh vs State Of Haryana And Ors.
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
1
CRWP CRWP-12097 CRWP CRWP 12097 12097-2026 12097 2026 2026 2026
238 238 238 238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP CRWP-12097 CRWP CRWP 12097 12097-2026 12097 2026 2026 2026
Mukesh
….Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and others
….Respondents
Date of Decision: October 30 Date of Decision: October 30, 2026 2026
Date of Decision: Date of Decision: October 30 October 30 2026 2026
Date Date of Uploading: Date Date of Uploading: of Uploading: October of Uploading: October October 30 October 30 30, , , , 2026 30 2026 2026 2026
CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Present:- Present: Present: Mr. Lajpat Rai Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.
SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. , J. , J.
Present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, seeking
setting-aside of the impugned order dated 24.08.2026 (Annexure P-9) passed by
respondent No.1, vide which the case of the petitioner for pre-mature release has
been rejected and deferred to be reconsidered after a period of 01 year, which is
against the law laid down by this Court in CRWP CRWP CRWP-8232 CRWP 8232 8232-2022 8232 2022 2022 titled as Pohlu @ 2022 Pohlu @ Pohlu @ Pohlu @
Polu Polu Ram versus Polu Polu Ram versus Ram versus State of Haryana and others Ram versus State of Haryana and others State of Haryana and others, decided on 05.02.2024 State of Haryana and others 05.02.2024 05.02.2024 and also in 05.02.2024
violation of Premature Release Policy dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P-2). Further
prayer has been made to direct the respondents to release the petitioner till the
case is not considered by the competent authority for premature release, as per
the Pre-Mature Release Policy dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P-2).
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
2
CRWP CRWP-12097 CRWP CRWP 12097 12097-2026 12097 2026 2026 2026
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia , contended that the
petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of filing a petition i.e.
CRWP CRWP-11281 CRWP CRWP 11281 11281-2024 11281 2024 2024, which was disposed of, vide order dated 02.12.2024; 2024
relevant whereof reads thus:
“ 4. Given above, the petition is disposed of with observations that if the
case of the petitioner is at par with the co-convict then petitioner is certainly
entitled to same relief as given to co-convict under Article 14 of
Constitution of India. As such, let a decision be taken by the concerned
authorities that whether the petitioner is entitled to same relief as was given
to some co-convict and because of Article 14 which provides equality
before law and grounds on parity. The decision be taken on or before
31.12.2024. Liberty reserved to petitioner to come again to this Court, if
need arises. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ”
2.1. Learned counsel has further iterated that pursuant to the aforesaid
order, respondent No.3 passed the order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure P-7)
rejecting the plea of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not
completed actual sentence of 14 years and total sentence of 20 years along with
remissions. It has been urged that the petitioner laid challenged the order dated
18.02.2025, by way of CRWP CRWP CRWP-91 CRWP 91 9155 91 55 55-2025 55 2025 2025 and the said writ petition was disposed 2025
of vide order dated 21.04.2026 (Annexure P-8) by directing the concerned State
Authorities to take a ratiocinated decision upon the plea of the petitioner. It has
been contended that yet again, vide impugned order dated 24.08.2026 (Annexure
P-9), case of the petitioner was rejected and deferred for one year to be
reconsidered from 30.06.2026 to evaluate his conduct.
2.2. Learned counsel has urged that co-convict(s) of the petitioners,
namely, Bansi, Rajinder @ Naresh and Yad Ram @ Yadu @ Pappu who had also
approached this Court by way of different writ petition(s) seeking their pre-
mature release, and the case of the petitioner is similarly placed as to that of
aforesaid co-convicts, have already been ordered to be released; however, the
petitioner has not been accorded the same benefit.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
3
CRWP CRWP-12097 CRWP CRWP 12097 12097-2026 12097 2026 2026 2026
2.3. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner, along with
his co-accused, was convicted for commission of offence punishable under
Section 460 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Life
imprisonment, vide judgment of conviction/ order of sentence dated
20/21.02.2009 (Annexure P-1) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Panipat; and appeal preferred thereagainst also stands dismissed vide judgment
dated 29.07.2013 passed in CRA CRA CRA-D-775 CRA 775 775-DB 775 DB DB-2010 DB 2010 2010. 2010
2.4. Learned counsel has argued that the case of the petitioner, for grant
of Pre-Mature Release, has been passed in violation of Pre-Mature Release
Policy dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P-2) and further in direct violation of
decisions of this Court in Pohlu @ Polu Ram vs. State of Haryana and others Pohlu @ Polu Ram vs. State of Haryana and others Pohlu @ Polu Ram vs. State of Haryana and others, Pohlu @ Polu Ram vs. State of Haryana and others
CRWP No.8232 of 2022, decided on 05.02.2024 CRWP No.8232 of 2022 05.02.2024, as well as decision of the
CRWP No.8232 of 2022 CRWP No.8232 of 2022 05.02.2024 05.02.2024
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana versus Jagdish State of Haryana versus Jagdish State of Haryana versus Jagdish, reported as AIR State of Haryana versus Jagdish AIR AIR AIR
2010 SC 1690. Learned counsel has further argued that the impugned order is 2010 SC 1690
2010 SC 1690 2010 SC 1690
also against the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in CRWP CRWP CRWP- CRWP
11218 11218-2024 11218 11218 2024 2024 titled as Pawan Kumar versus State of Haryana and others 2024 Pawan Kumar versus State of Haryana and others Pawan Kumar versus State of Haryana and others, vide Pawan Kumar versus State of Haryana and others
order dated 19.02.2025 19.02.2025 19.02.2025. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner’s case has 19.02.2025
been deferred on account of the fact that petitioner, along with his co-accused,
had committed dacoity and murder of a young man and also injured the
complainant, which is heinous crime and further, the petitioner was also
involved in 08 other serious criminal cases. Hence, grant of petition in hand is
prayed for.
3. Per contra , learned State counsel has filed reply by way of an
affidavit dated 28.10.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record. Raising
submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
4
CRWP CRWP-12097 CRWP CRWP 12097 12097-2026 12097 2026 2026 2026
grant of petition in hand by arguing that the case of the petitioner has rightly
been rejected and deferred as he has committed a heinous crime, however, he
could not controvert the fact that the petitioner fulfils the conditions mentioned
in the Policy (Annexure P-2), which is applicable in the case of the petitioner.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing
the record of the case with their able assistance, this Court is of the opinion that
the policy framed by the State Government governing Pre-Mature Release is
equally applicable to all convicts and directly impacts their fundamental rights as
enshrined under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Once eligible
to be considered for premature release according to the applicable policy, the
State cannot deny him this concession without recording due reasons for the
same. The State is duty bound to act fairly and to proceed according to the policy
formulated by it in a manner that does not discriminate between similarly
situated persons in absence of an intelligible differentia. Non-arbitrariness is a
facet in Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the State and all its agencies
are required to abide by it. The State cannot indulge in cherry picking and only
provide the concession of premature release to a select few out of the pool of
similarly situated convicts and such approach is highly inequitable.
5. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joseph vs. Joseph vs. Joseph vs. Joseph vs.
The State of Kerala and others, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.520 of 2022 decided The State of Kerala and others, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.520 of 2022 decided The State of Kerala and others, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.520 of 2022 decided The State of Kerala and others, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.520 of 2022 decided
on 21.09.2023, 2023 SCC on 21.09.2023, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1211 on 21.09.2023, 2023 SCC on 21.09.2023, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1211 OnLine SC 1211 OnLine SC 1211 , speaking through Justice S.
Ravindra Bhat, has held as under:
“ 28. To issue a policy directive, or guidelines, over and above the Act and
Rules framed (where the latter forms part and parcel of the former), and 14
undermine what they encapsulate, cannot be countenanced. Blanket
exclusion of certain offences, from the scope of grant of remission,
especially by way of an executive policy, is not only arbitrary, but turns the
ideals of reformation that run through our criminal justice system, on its
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
5
CRWP CRWP-12097 CRWP CRWP 12097 12097-2026 12097 2026 2026 2026
head. Numerous judgments of this court, have elaborated on the penological
goal of reformation and rehabilitation, being the cornerstone of our criminal
justice system, rather than retribution. The impact of applying such an
executive instruction/guideline to guide the executive’s discretion would be
that routinely, any progress made by a long-term convict would be rendered
naught, leaving them feeling hopeless, and condemned to an indefinite
period of incarceration. While the sentencing courts may, in light of this
court’s majority judgment in Sriharan (supra), now impose term sentences
(in excess of 14 or 20 years) for crimes that are specially heinous, but not
reaching the level of ‘rarest of rare’ (warranting the death penalty), the state
government cannot – especially by way of executive instruction, take on
such a role, for crimes as it deems fit.
xxx xxx xxx
37. Classifying - to use a better word, typecasting convicts, through
guidelines which are inflexible, based on their crime committed in the
distant past can result in the real danger of overlooking the reformative
potential of each individual convict. Grouping types of convicts, based on
the offences they were found to have committed, as a starting point, may be
justified. However, the prison laws in India - read with Articles 72 and 161 -
encapsulate a strong underlying reformative purpose. The practical impact
of a guideline, which bars consideration of a premature release request by a
convict who has served over 20 or 25 years, based entirely on the nature of
crime committed in the distant past, would be to crush the life force out of
such individual, altogether. Thus, for instance, a 19 or 20 year old individual
convicted for a crime, which finds place in the list which bars premature
release, altogether, would mean that such person would never see freedom,
and would die within the prison walls. There is a peculiarity of continuing
to imprison one who committed a crime years earlier who might well have
changed totally since that time. This is the condition of many people serving
very long sentences. They may have killed someone (or done something
much less serious, such as commit a narcotic drug related offences or be
serving a life sentence for other non-violent crimes) as young individuals
and remain incarcerated 20 or more years later. Regardless of the morality
of continued punishment, one may question its rationality. The question is,
what is achieved by continuing to punish a person who recognises the
wrongness of what they have done, who no longer identifies with it, and
who bears little resemblance to the person they were years earlier? It is
tempting to say that they are no longer the same person. Yet, the insistence
of guidelines, obdurately, to not look beyond the red lines drawn by it and
continue in denial to consider the real impact of prison good behavior, and
other relevant factors (to ensure that such individual has been rid of the
likelihood of causing harm to society) results in violation of Article 14 of
the Constitution. Excluding the relief of premature release to prisoners who
have served extremely long periods of incarceration, not only crushes their
spirit, and instils despair, but signifies society's resolve to be harsh and
unforgiving. The idea of rewarding, a prisoner for good conduct is entirely
negated.
38. In the petitioner's case, the 1958 Rules are clear – a life sentence,
is deemed to be 20 years of incarceration. After this, the prisoner is entitled
to premature release. The guidelines issued by the NHRC pointed out to us
by the counsel for the petitioner, are also relevant to consider - that of
mandating release, after serving 25 years as sentence (even in heinous
crimes). At this juncture, redirecting the petitioner who has already
undergone over 26 years of incarceration (and over 35 years of punishment
with remission), before us to undergo, yet again, consideration before the
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
6
CRWP CRWP-12097 CRWP CRWP 12097 12097-2026 12097 2026 2026 2026
Advisory Board, and thereafter, the state government for premature release -
would be a cruel outcome, like being granted only a salve to fight a raging
fire, in the name of procedure. The grand vision of the rule of law and the
idea of fairness is then swept away, at the altar of procedure - which this
court has repeatedly held to be a “handmaiden of justice. ”
6. A Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajkumar vs. The Rajkumar vs. The Rajkumar vs. The Rajkumar vs. The
State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2023 SC 265 State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2023 SC 265 State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2023 SC 265 State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2023 SC 265 , speaking through Chief Justice
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, has held as under:
“ 13. The State having formulated Rules and a Standing Policy for deciding
cases of premature release, it is bound by its own formulations of law. Since
there are legal provisions which hold the field, it is not open to the State to
adopt an arbitrary yardstick for picking up cases for premature release. It
must strictly abide by the terms of its policies bearing in mind the
fundamental principle of law that each case for premature release has to be
decided on the basis of the legal position as it stands on the date of the
conviction subject to a more beneficial regime being provided in terms of a
subsequent policy determination. The provisions of the law must be applied
equally to all persons. Moreover, those provisions have to be applied
efficiently and transparently so as to obviate the grievance that the policy is
being applied unevenly to similarly circumstanced persons. An arbitrary
method adopted by the State is liable to grave abuse and is liable to lead to a
situation where persons lacking resources, education and awareness suffer
the most. ”
7. A two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish’s case Jagdish’s case Jagdish’s case Jagdish’s case
(supra) (supra) (supra) (supra) , speaking through Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan laid down the parameters to
consider while deciding upon the question of premature release:
“ 38. At the time of considering the case of pre-mature release of a life
convict, the authorities may require to consider his case mainly taking into
consideration
1. whether the offence was an individual act of crime without
affecting the society at large;
2. whether there was any chance of future recurrence of committing
a crime;
3. whether the convict had lost his potentiality in committing the
crime;
4. whether there was any fruitful purpose of confining the convict
any more;
5. the socio-economic condition of the convict's family and other
similar circumstances.” (enumeration added)
”
8. While the petitioner has committed grave and serious offences,
once a duly enacted policy is in existence, it must be honoured and applied to
each case in its letter and spirit. The theory of reformation and rehabilitation that
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
7
CRWP CRWP-12097 CRWP CRWP 12097 12097-2026 12097 2026 2026 2026
th
emerged in the 18 century aims at separating the criminal from the crime and
compels us to look beyond the one fateful act committed by him. In a civilized
society like ours, it would be truly unfortunate, if an offender is not given the
opportunity to realize and fully fathom his mistake and channel that awareness
into making fruitful contributions in society. The peno-correctional institutes
must not only be looked at as a place, where punishment is carried out, but also a
place of rehabilitation. The criminal justice dispensation system must be guided
by the idea of allowing the offender to rectify his wrong and reintegrate into the
society as a law abiding member once the sentence is served.
9. This Court in Pohlu @ Polu Ram’s case (supra) Pohlu @ Polu Ram’s case (supra) , while dealing with
Pohlu @ Polu Ram’s case (supra) Pohlu @ Polu Ram’s case (supra)
deferment of cases of the accused for premature release, has held as under:
“ The entire edifice of exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial power rests on
the foundation of giving reasoned and detailed orders. It is a fundamental
principle of natural justice and ensures that there is proper and due
application of mind while exercising said power. Therefore, the practice of
arbitrarily categorising convicts as threats to society or indiscriminately
deferring their cases for premature release needs to be strongly discouraged.
It is expedient that the competent authority does not act in a ritualistic
fashion and application of mind is discernible.
”
10. It would be naive to hope for a society without crime, however, it
would be in line with the welfarist approach of State to make an attempt towards
rehabilitation of offenders and allow them to reshape themselves as a functional
member of the society. The overarching goal of punishment is deterrence and the
sentiment must not be weaponised to glamorise savage justice. People from all
walks of life hold the idea of liberty close to their heart and have historically
done everything in their power to not part from it. For a convict serving a life
sentence, liberty has to be the most precious of possessions. It should not be
assumed that all convicts when released will unleash revenge onto their
prosecutors. The convict's conduct in jail, state of mind, gravity of the offence,
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
8
CRWP CRWP-12097 CRWP CRWP 12097 12097-2026 12097 2026 2026 2026
social background and behaviour while on parole must be duly considered before
deciding upon the question of his premature release. In the words of Justice
Krishna Iyer, “ Social Justice is the signature tune of our Constitution and the
little man in peril of losing his liberty is the consumer of Social Justice .”
11. In view of the above, impugned order dated 24.08.2026 (Annexure
P-9) is set aside and the competent authority is directed to consider and decide
case of the petitioner afresh, strictly in accordance with applicable policy and
also in view of ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish's Jagdish's Jagdish's Jagdish's
case (supra) case (supra) case (supra) case (supra) and by this Court in Pohlu @ Polu Ram's case (supra) Pohlu @ Polu Ram's case (supra) Pohlu @ Polu Ram's case (supra) Pohlu @ Polu Ram's case (supra) and Pawan Pawan Pawan Pawan
Kumar's case (supra) Kumar's case (supra) within a period of 04 weeks from the date of receipt of
Kumar's case (supra) Kumar's case (supra)
certified copy of this order.
12. With the aforesaid observations made and directions issued, present
petition is disposed of disposed of disposed of. disposed of
13. It is made clear that any deviation from the policy or the
guidelines/directions given by this Court would entitle the petitioner to file
appropriate application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, seeking
initiation of Contempt of Court proceedings against the official concerned.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GO EL EL) EL
JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
October 30 October 30, 2026 October 30 October 30 2026 2026 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment