Judgment Ram Chand Gupta, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for premature release of the petitioner on the plea that he is 70% disable as per certificate, Annexure P1 and hence, entitled for release under para 2(e) of the policy dated 1991 as modified vide Memo No. 36/135/91-1JJ(II) dated 12.04.2002, Annexure P2. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent-State. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. 2. Admitted facts are that, petitioner has been undergoing sentence of life imprisonment in FIR No. 370 dated 13.08.1996, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Rai, Sonepat. He was convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide order dated 13.02.1998. He has filed appeal against this judgment, which was dismissed by this Court. He was also released on interim bail. However, he remained absconder and overstayed on interim bail from 21.01.1999 to 03.10.2004. He was arrested and got admitted in District Jail, Sonepat on 04.10.2004. He was admitted to District Jail, Karnal on transfer from District Jail, Sonepat. He has already undergone total sentence of 11 years one month and five days as on 11.10.2010. 3. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that at present he is 100% handicapped and he is entitled to be released under para 2 (e) of the Instructions dated 12.04.2002, Annexure P2. 4. The relevant paragraph 2(e) of instructions dated 12.04.2002, reads as under :- "2. XX XX XX (e) Physically handicapped If the handicap existed before the crime 5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the State that premature release case of petitioner was considered by the competent authority in view of ratio of law laid down by Honble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Jagdish and Harpal, 2010(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 464 : 2010(2) R.A.J. 438 : AIR 2010 (SC) 1690 and as he has not completed the requisite period of actual sentence of 10 years and 14 years of total sentence including remission and hence, he was not released. It has also been contended that leg of petitioner was amputated in October, 1995 i.e. much before he was involved in the murder case and sentenced to imprisonment for life on 13.02.1998. It has also been contended that leg of petitioner was amputated in October, 1995 i.e. much before he was involved in the murder case and sentenced to imprisonment for life on 13.02.1998. It has also been submitted that he was got examined from medical board consisting of Principal Medical Officer and Orthopaedic Surgeon, General Hospital, Karnal. However, as per report of Medical Board the case of the present petitioner is not covered under para 2 (e) of the instructions. 6. A careful perusal of aforementioned instructions shows that a convict can take benefit of the said clause firstly, if he has developed handicap after his or her sentence in the case in which he is undergoing imprisonment and further subject to followings :- (i) the handicap is of such a nature as to render him totally incapable of committing any offence; (ii) further render him incapable of looking after himself in the prison. 7. However, in view of the certificate given by medical board the disability of petitioner was assessed as 70% and opined that the handicap of petitioner is not of such nature so as to render him totally incapable of committing any offence/physical violence and that his handicap is not of such nature that he cannot look after himself in prison. 8. Hence, in view of these facts, there is no merit in the present petition for premature release on behalf of petitioner.