JUDGMENT Mr. Nawab Singh J.(Oral).- Charanjit Singh-petitioner was convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment dated September 4th, 2003, in case bearing First Information Report No.51 dated February 14th, 1998 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. By filing the present petition, petitioner has impugned the order dated December 9th, 2010 passed by Principal Secretary, Punjab Government, Department of Home Affiars and Justice, whereby, case for his premature release was dismissed by the State Government on the ground that: - “— convict has killed his wife Sunita by setting fire after sprinkling kerosene oil and the offence committed by him is a heinous crime.” 3. It is the case of the State Government that the petitioner has already completed the sentence imposed upon him as per the policy of the State Government dated July 8th, 1991 as mentioned in the impugned order itself. District Magistrate, Ludhiana and Director General of Police (Jails), Punjab by orders dated Annexure R-2 and Annexure R-3 recommended the case for his premature release. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the petitioner has already completed the sentence as per Policy of the State Government. The ground on which his case was rejected is not cogent. To support the contention, he has relied upon (i). Bhagwant Saran & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. And Ors. 1983 (1) C.L.R. 504 and (ii). Life Convict Laxman Naskar Vs. State of West Bengal 2000(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 18. 5. In Bhagwant Saran’s case (supra), the Committee appointed to report on the conduct of prisoners, recommended their release but the State Government did not accept the same and rejected the case for premature release of the petitioners keeping in view the law and order situation. The ground of rejection was not accepted by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court and ordered the release of the petitioners forthwith. 6. In Laxman Naskar’s case (supra), case for premature release of the petitioner, undergoing imprisonment for life, who had completed the total sentence of 23 years including remissions, was rejected on the following grounds:- “(i). Two witnesses who had deposed before trial Court and people of locality were apprehensive of acute breach of peace. (ii). Petitioner was person of about 43 years of age and had the potential of committing crime. (iii). Two witnesses who had deposed before trial Court and people of locality were apprehensive of acute breach of peace. (ii). Petitioner was person of about 43 years of age and had the potential of committing crime. (iii). Incident in relation to which crime had been committed was the sequel of political feud affecting the society at large.” Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the case of the petitioner could not have been rejected on these grounds and remitted the same to the Government of West Bengal for reexamination. 7. Above being the legal and factual position, the State Government is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein above and concept of law enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court and the fact that he had already completed the sentence. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, it is ordered that till the case for premature release of the petitioner is decided by the respondent-State, he shall be released on parole on his furnishing personal bond and a surety bond to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Ludhiana. The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and will keep peace and shall not indulge in any criminal activity while on parole. After receipt of the order from the State Government, Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana shall inform the petitioner accordingly. 9. Disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------