Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 14 October, 2025
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRWP-12282-2023 -1-
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-12282-2023
Reserved on: 16.09.2025
Pronounced on: 14.10.2025
Dinesh Kumar ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. AG, Haryana with
Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Articel 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., is for setting aside the order dated 29.11.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2 in view of the Government Policy dated 04.02.1993 and policy dated 12.04.2002 and to consider the pre-mature release of the petitioner in view of the above- mentioned Government Policy.
2. As per the facts of the case, the petitioner was prosecuted in FIR No.125, dated 20.10.2004, registered under Sections 302, 449, 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station City Gohana, District Sonepat and he was convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat under Sections 449, 302, 34 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide order dated 22.11.2006. Thereafter, on completion of about 12 years of actual sentence, the petitioner applied for premature release, however, the same was considered and dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.11.2023 by learned Additional Chief Secretary to 1 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 18:34:46 ::: CRWP-12282-2023 -2- Government, Haryana, Jail Department. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 29.11.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. He submits that case of the petitioner is covered by Haryana Government Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002 (hereinafter referred to 'Policy') (Annexure P-2), vide which the petitioner is to be released after completion of 10 years of actual sentence and 14 years of total sentence, whereas, the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 12 years, 01 month & 02 days and total sentence of 14 years, 03 months & 13 days as on the date of filing of the application. He submits that the respondent-authorities have illegally rejected the application of premature release of the petitioner on the ground that the case of the petitioner for premature release is covered under Para 2
(a)(x) of the Policy which applies to the convicts who were imprisoned for life having committed a heinous crime such as murder exhibiting brutality such as cutting the body into pieces or burning, dragging the body for which he is required to undergo 14 years of actual sentence and 20 years of total sentence to be eligible for his case of premature release. He has relied upon judgments of this Court in CRWP-1576-2019 titled as Vakil Singh @ Ajaib Singh, decided on 11.02.2022; CRWP-8232-2022 titled as Pohlu @ Polu Ram, decided on 05.02.2024; CRWP-4366-2022 titled as Shiv Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 19.12.2023 and CRWP-10709-2022 titled as Harbans Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 05.02.2024. It is further submitted that the petitioner is confining in Central 2 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 18:34:47 ::: CRWP-12282-2023 -3- Jail-I, Hisar and his act and conduct inside the jail remained excellent and of utmost satisfaction. He, thus, submits that the impugned order being unsustainable in the eyes of law, deserves to be set aside and case of the petitioner for premature release be considered in terms of policy dated 12.04.2002.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. State counsel has submitted that the petitioner alongwith co-accused had brutally committed the murder of Jitender by causing repeated stab wounds on the chest, stomach and other parts of the body of the deceased with sharp edged knife like dagger (Chhura) on 19.10.2004 by inflicting 11 injuries, out of which 4 injuries are skin deep and rest are incised injuries. The motive behind the crime was that an altercation took place between the deceased and petitioner's side. The petitioner party having grudge against them, wanted to take revenge for that altercation, therefore, they committed the murder of Jitender. Hence, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide order dated 22.11.2006. State counsel has submitted that 11 injuries were inflicted by the petitioner and the co-accused upon the deceased.
State counsel, thus, submits that keeping in view the injuries, it is apparent that deceased Jitender was brutally murdered by the petitioner and his co-accused. State counsel further submits that the petitioner is not a law abiding person and remained involved in heinous crimes. State counsel submits that during parole, the petitioner remained absconding from 3 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 18:34:47 ::: CRWP-12282-2023 -4- 20.05.2008 to 25.09.2014 and during this period, two FIRs i.e. FIR No.142/2009 under Sections 307/120-B IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, at Police Station City Rohtak and FIR No.401 dated 25.09.2014, under Sections 174-A IPC, at Police Station City Sonepat were registered against him. State counsel has submitted that till the State Government commutes the sentence of a life convict through a written order under appropriate law, the petitioner cannot claim premature release as a matter of right. State counsel submits that it is only a concession given by the State Government after considering the behaviour of the convict inside the jail, gravity of offence, manner and circumstances under which the crime was committed etc. It is submitted that as per Section 433-A Cr.P.C., a life convict has to undergo at least 14 years of actual sentence, if he is convicted in a case in which death penalty is one of the sentence and the petitioner is convicted under Section 302 IPC, where the death sentence is one of the sentence prescribed under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, the petitioner has to undergo minimum 14 years of actual sentence. State counsel has relied upon Maru Ram vs. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147; Swami Shardhanand @ Murli Manohar Mishra vs. State of Karnataka, (SC) 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 772; State of Haryana and others vs. Jagdish, AIR 2010 SC 1690. State counsel has further submitted that on completion of 12 years, 01 month & 02 days of actual sentence and 14 years, 03 months & 13 days of total sentence as on 13.03.2023, the case of the petitioner was placed before the State Level Committee, which was declined vide impugned order dated 29.11.2023, it was observed that the petitioner alongwith the co-accused brutally committed the murder of Jitender by causing repeated stab wounds 4 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 18:34:47 ::: CRWP-12282-2023 -5- on chest, stomach and other parts of body with sharp edged knife like dagger (chhura) and thus, his case is squarely covered under para 2(a)(x) of the policy and the same would be re-considered after completion of 14 years of actual sentence and 20 years of total sentence as per policy dated 12.04.2002. State counsel, thus, submits that there being no infirmity in the impugned order passed, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the murder of Jitender. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that with regard to Para 2(a)(x) of the policy dated 12.04.2002, only those murders may be called brutal wherein, either the body has been cut into pieces or it has been burnt/dragged, does not behold any merit. While examining whether a murder exhibits brutality or not, consideration cannot be limited only to the instances provided in clause 2(a)(x) and it depends upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In the specific facts of a case, brutality may be perceived from the cumulative circumstances and actions of the accused persons and the same are not only limited to cutting the body into pieces or burning/dragging the body. Whether the murder was committed in a brutal manner has to be determined from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The injuries inflicted upon the deceased have been discussed in detail in the judgment dated 22.11.2006 vide which the petitioner was convicted. In Para 11(i) of the judgment, postmortem details given by Dr. Parveen Goel (PW-4) are reproduced hereunder:-
"1. Stab wound over the left side of chest 3cm x 1cm deep upto 5 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 18:34:47 ::: CRWP-12282-2023 -6- the left ventricle of heart.
2. Stab wound over the right side of chest deep up to the right atrium. Size was 3cm x 1cm.
3. Stab wound over the right side of chest in the mid clavicle line 3cm x 1cm and deep up to the right lung.
4. Stab wound in the epigastrie region 4cm x 1cm midline and vertical.
5. Stab wound over the left side over spleen area. Size was 3cm x 1cm and deep up to spleen.
6. Superficial incised wound of size 10cm x 1cm, clear cut margins muscle deep only.
7. Stab wound over the liver area 3cm x 1cm on left lob of liver was clear cut.
8. Stab wound over the back at left lumbar region 3cm x lem muscle deep.
9. Incised wound over the right hand on medial side 6cm x 1.4cm clear cut margine.
10. Incised wound over the right hand on medial side 6cm x 1.5cm clear cut margins.
11. Incised wound over the right scrotum of size 4cm x 0.5cm clear cut margins, skin deep."
Perusal of the above-said details would show that all the injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon and were ante mortem in nature. As per Dr. Parveen PW-4, cause of death was due to multiple injuries to the vital organs, which led to excessive haemorrhage and shock. Thus, the petitioner was brutally murdered by the petitioner and his co-accused.
As far as claim of the petitioner for his premature release is concerned, the State Level Committee rightly rejected the same vide order dated 29.11.2023 keeping in view the criminal offence and nature of crime committed by the petitioner in a brutal and gruesome manner. The State 6 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 18:34:47 ::: CRWP-12282-2023 -7- Level Committee observed that the case of the life convict for his premature release is squarely covered under para 2(a)(x) of the Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002 and as per the same, he is required to undergo 14 years of actual sentence and 20 years of total sentence before his case is considered for premature release, however, the petitioner had undergone 12 years, 01 month and 02 days of actual sentence and 14 years, 03 months and 13 days of total sentence as on 31.03.2023. Hence, being not eligible, his case for premature release was rejected. To resolve the above-said controversy, appreciation of Para 2(a)(x) of the policy dated 12.04.2002, is essential, which reads as under:-
2(a)(x) Murder exhibiting brutality such as Their cases may be considered cutting the body into piece or after completion of 14 years burning/dragging the body as evident actual sentence including from judgment of the Court." undertrial period provided of such sentence including remissions is not less than 20 years.
It is a settled proposition of law that words like "includes" or "such as" provides an illustrative list and are not exhaustive. A bare perusal of this clause clearly shows that in the case of present policy as well, instances provided by using the words "such as" are mere illustrations and in no way provide an exhaustive list of such instances.
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in "Diwan Singh v. State of Haryana", reported as 1990(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 470, has observed that instructions are mere illustrations of some of the heinous crimes and the said definition does not cover the entire range of all the cases relating to commission of heinous offences. Relevant para from this judgment is reproduced here under:
7 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 18:34:47 ::: CRWP-12282-2023 -8- "9. Faced with this situation, it was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence allegedly committed in the instant case: would not be covered by the definition of the heinous crime (d) of Para 2 of the instructions (Annexure P-1). A care perusal of clause (d) would indicate that the definition of a heinous crime in clause (d) of Para 2 of the Government instructions (Annexure P-1) merely gives instances of some of the crimes such a dowry deaths bride burning, Spouse killing, and cases disclosing great depravity of character and greed, and, those involving extreme brutality, murder with rape, murder while undergoing life sentence, organised and professional crimes of heinous nature like dacoity with murder and life convicts, who, are dangerous and hardened criminal for example from cumulative sentences, persistent had conduct in the prison, and, includes those, who, could for some definite reasons be prematurely released without danger to the public safety. In my view the case in hand would be covered by the definition in clause (d) of para 2 of the instructions, inasmuch as the offence committed by the present petitioner discloses great depravity of character and greed. Even otherwise the instances of heinous crimes mentioned in clause (d) of para 2 of the instructions ate mere illustrations of some of the heinous crimes and the said definition does not cover the entire range of all the cases relating to commission of heinous offences."
This Court in CWP-10011-2018 titled as "Jogender vs. State of Haryana & Others", decided on 06.12.2018 has held as under:-
"Looking at the injuries, I am of the considered view that it is a brutal murder. Now the policy of the Government shows that under Clause 2(a)(xii), one of the heinous crime is described as under:-
"(xii) Murder exhibiting brutality such as cutting the body into pieces of burning/dragging the body as evident from 8 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 18:34:47 ::: CRWP-12282-2023 -9- judgment of the Court."
It covers the murder exhibiting brutality such as cutting the body into pieces, burning or dragging the body as mentioned in the judgment of the Court. The cutting, dragging and burning of the body are some of the examples. It is seen from the judgment that the murder was committed with brutality.
After going through the injuries, this Court is of the considered view that murder was committed with brutality in broad daylight. Therefore, the case of the petitioner was rightly held to be covered under Clause 2(a) (xii) of the Policy of the Haryana Government dated 08.08.2000. Therefore, in order to consider for premature release, he has to undergo 14 years and with remission 20 years. There is no illegality in the impugned order dated 13.06.2016 (Annexure P-4).
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed."
Similar view has been taken by Patna High Court in "Munilal Sharma v. State of Bihar", reported as 2022(2) PCCR 455. Relevant para from this judgment is reproduced here under:
"16. It would be relevant to take note of the amended Rule 529(iv) introduced by the notification dated 10.12.2002. The same talks about 'ineligibility for premature release'. The said clause further provides that the categories of convicted prisoners mentioned therein who are undergoing life sentence may not be considered eligible for premature release and the same at clause (a) speaks of 'prisoners convicted of the heinous offences such as rape, dacoity, terrorist crime etc'.. The very fact that by the said amendment and on introduction of Clause
(iv) in Rule 529 of the Bihar Jail Manual the words used in clause (a) is 'heinous offences such as rape....etc', it goes without saying that the heinous offences mentioned in the said clause (a) have been given only by way of illustration and are not exhaustive. So far as the facts of the instant case is 9 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 18:34:47 ::: CRWP-12282-2023 -10- concerned, the petitioner was convicted for an offence under sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having raped and killed a 4 year old minor victim girl and for which he was sentence to death. Although in appeal his sentence was converted to a sentence of life imprisonment, nevertheless his conviction was affirmed. In the opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner would fall in the category (a) of Rule 529(iv) of a prisoner convicted of heinous offence and the petitioner would be ineligible for premature release."
There is no dispute regarding the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same are distinguishable.
A perusal of reply filed by the State shows that petitioner was also involved in two more FIRs i.e. FIR No.142/2009 registered under Sections 307/120-B IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, at Police Station City Rohtak and FIR No.401 dated 25.09.2014, registered under Sections 174-A IPC, at Police Station City Sonepat. It can also not be denied that the conduct of the petitioner in jail was found unsatisfactory, as he remained absconded from parole for almost 6 years i.e. from 20.05.2008 to 25.09.2014. Undisputedly, FIRs have been registered against the petitioner under the provisions of IPC, when he was released on parole. Hence, conduct of the petitioner has not been found satisfactory and it cannot be safely inferred that petitioner has lost his potential of committing crime or there is no chance of future reoccurrence of committing crime by the petitioner. These circumstances further substantiate that the decision taken by the authorities vide impugned order dated 29.11.2023 is on the basis of relevant considerations.
10 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 18:34:47 ::: CRWP-12282-2023 -11- Weighing the facts and circumstances of the present case on the anvil of law settled, no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 29.11.2023. Thus, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
14.10.2025 JUDGE
sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 18:34:47 :::