Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed a significant issue regarding whether the pending appeal against a conviction should prevent the consideration of a case for early release.

Justice Deepak Gupta's bench was handling a case where the petitioner had filed a petition requesting the respondents to release her early under Article 161, following the state's policy. The petitioner argued that she had already served more than 16.5 years of her sentence, which met the criteria for early release.

In this particular case, both the petitioner and an individual named Manjeet Singh were found guilty and convicted under Section 302, in conjunction with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, the petitioner's representative, asserted that the petitioner has already spent more than twice the mandatory time in custody needed for early release, as outlined in the premature release policies set by the State of Punjab under Article 161.

The matters brought before the bench were as follows:

• Whether pendency of appeal against conviction is a bar to consider case for premature release?
• Whether the sentence of life imprisonment ‘till natural death’, is a bar to the applicability of the policy?

The bench cited the case of Neki Nalwa v. State of Punjab and others, in which it was mentioned that the petitioner's case was not being recommended for premature release consideration because her conviction had not yet reached its final conclusion, as her appeal was still pending before the court. The bench emphasized that merely having the appeal pending should not be a sufficient reason for the relevant authorities to refrain from initiating and evaluating her case for early release.

The High Court ruled that the petitioner's premature release should not be delayed solely because their appeal is pending before the division bench of the court.

The bench examined the Punjab Premature Release of Life Convicts Policy, 2011, and observed that according to this policy, the behavior of the convict over the past five years is a crucial factor. The convict's conduct is considered satisfactory if they have not been penalized for any prison offenses during that five-year period before their case can be recommended for remission, parole, or similar actions.

The High Court noted that the jail offense in question occurred in February 2014, which is more than 9 years ago. The petitioner has already been tried, convicted, and served a sentence for that offense. Additionally, the appeal against the conviction is pending, and the sentence has been suspended by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. Given these circumstances, the High Court concluded that the petitioner's conviction and the jail offense should not be a basis for withholding their case for premature release.

The bench examined the case of Kamal Kant Tiwari v. State of Punjab and others and concluded that when deciding whether to grant premature release to a life convict, any offenses committed by the convict while in prison should not be considered. Instead, the convict should face separate consequences for any jail-related offenses they may have committed.

The High Court ruled that the petitioner's early release should not be denied based on a jail offense committed in 2014, for which she has been convicted and sentenced.

Based on the information provided, the bench granted the petition.

Case: Ravdeep Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors, CRWP-3794-2023.