JUDGMENT Amar Dutt, J. - Jagjit Singh, petitioner, who is undergoing imprisonment for life in pursuance of the conviction and sentence recorded against him on 22.10.1991 in case FIR No. 197 dated 26.9.1989 registered at P.S. Sadar, Abohar by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, has filed the present petition asserting that his case and that of his brother Amrik Singhs case for premature release were forwarded by the jail authorities to the Government alongwith recommendation of the police that there was no apprehension of breach of peace if they are released on bail. The Home Department had directed the release of his brother while petitioners case was turned down. 2. According to the petitioner, the appropriate Government ought not to have treated him differently from his brother and therefore has prayed that a direction should be issued to the respondent for considering it afresh as the relief has been given to his brother. 3. In the reply filed, after giving the details of the sentence imposed on the petitioner it was admitted that the District Magistrate had forwarded the case of Jagjit Singh for premature release. It was, however, pointed out that this by itself does not entitle the petitioner to the benefit of premature release. It was also submitted that after taking into consideration the petitioners case his Excellency the Governor of Punjab had rejected the same as the circumstances in which the petitioner had murdered Mohinder Kaur indicated the extreme brutality on the part of the petitioner and as such he was required to undergo 12 years actual imprisonment before being considered for premature release. It was also submitted that the petitioners case was not covered by the instructions issued on 12.8.1998 which clearly specifies that special remission will not be admissible in the case of following category of prisoner : "If the prisoner is involved in ghastly murders/double murder involving extreme brutality beastiality in which the prisoner has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life or if he is involved in the crime connected with terrorism in the State." 4. After giving my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that in view of the fact that it is not disputed that while committing the murder, the petitioner and his co-accused had after giving the deceased fatal injuries on account of the dispute which existed between the parties about her share in the land/property had returned to the place where she was lying and on finding that she was still alive put her on a heap of cotton sticks and set on fire. This conduct of theirs exhibits extreme brutality beastiality which according to the instructions issued on 12.8.1998 by the State of Punjab does not warrant the extension of concession of premature release to the petitioner. The fact that co-accused of the petitioner, which according to the petitioner was similarly placed had been allowed the concession of premature release would not to my mind render the order illegal passed in his case as one wrong order passed in favour of one of the prisoners would not in law entitle the others to a similar treatment from the State. In view of the above, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.