'Liberty Most Precious Possession For Life Convicts, State Cannot Cherry-Pick While Granting Pre-Mature Release': Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that 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 inequities."

Justice Harpreet Sing Brar said, "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, 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,” the Court highlighted.

The Court further said that 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.

These observations were made while hearing the plea pf challenging the rejection order on his bail application. The petitioner Pawar Kumar was convicted in a criminal case and awarded life imprisonment.

It was argued by Kumar's counsel that his case is covered by the Policy issued in April 2002  and in the Policy there is no provision with regard to the deferment of the case of a convict and the petitioner's case has been deferred on account of the fact that he is involved in 12 cases and out of those cases, he has already been acquitted in 08 cases and in 03 other cases, he is on bail.

After hearing the submissions, the Court opined that the policy instituted by the State for premature 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.

Justice Brar further said "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."

Reliance was placed on Pohlu @ Polu Ram vs. State of Haryana and others to underscore that held that citing the crime for which an accused is already punished for denying premature release would amount to "double jeopardy." 

The Court also referred to Apex Court's decision in State of Haryana vs. Jagdish, [AIR 2010 SC 1690] wherein it was held that "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.” 

The Court said that it would be naive to hope for a society without crime, however, it would be in line with the welfarist approach of the 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," it added.

Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh, strictly in accordance with applicable policy and also in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jagdish's case (supra) and by this Court in Pohlu @ Polu Ram's case (supra) within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

While disposing of the plea, the Court said, "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."

Mr. Lajpat Rai Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rupinder Singh Jhand, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Title: Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 93

Click here to read/download the order