Relu Punia murder case in Haryana: HC orders interim bail for couple who killed 8 of family in 2001

Chandigarh, Dec 11 (PTI) The Punjab and Haryana High court has ordered the release on interim bail of a couple who were convicted for killing eight people, including a former Haryana MLA, in 2001.

They were ordered to be released on bail till the competent authority takes a decision regarding their premature release.

The directions came on petitions filed by Sonia and her husband Sanjeev Kumar, who had challenged the Haryana government's decision to reject their pleas for premature release, while asserting that they had fulfilled all the necessary requirements.

Sonia and Kumar were convicted for the murder of former Haryana MLA Relu Ram Punia (50) and seven of his family members on the night of August 23, 2001 at their farmhouse in Litani village of Hisar district while they were asleep.

The seven other family members were Punia's wife Krishna Devi (41), daughter Priyanka (14), son Sunil Kumar (23), daughter-in-law Shakuntala Devi (20), grandson Lokesh (4) and granddaughters Shivani (2) and 45-day-old Preeti.

Sonia is Relu Ram Punia's daughter.

The case had sent shockwaves throughout the country.

Punia was elected to the Haryana Assembly from the Barwala constituency in Hisar in 1996.

Sonia and Kumar were sentenced to death but in 2014, the Supreme Court commuted their death sentences to life imprisonment.

Justice Surya Pratap Singh reserved its order on the pleas of the couple on November 21. The verdict was pronounced on December 9.

The couple, in their separate petitions, had challenged the August 2024 order of the Haryana government that rejected their pleas for premature release and also directed that they will remain in jail till their last breath. The additional chief secretary had conveyed the decision on the recommendations of a state-level committee.

The petitioners had submitted that they had applied for premature release under the state's premature release policy of 2002.

"The present petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside with a direction to the respondents/authorities to consider the case of premature release of petitioners strictly in view of the policy dated April 12, 2002 as well as the observations made in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

"It is further directed that till the decision is taken by the competent authority regarding the premature release of the petitioners as per this order, the petitioners be released on interim bail on furnishing requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar," the court said.

"If the facts and circumstances of the case are analysed in the light of the principles of law discussed above, it transpires that the impugned order is patently perverse, illegal, unsustainable in the eyes of law, and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside," the order read.

The pleas had said the convicts, whose death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment, were entitled to be considered for a premature release on the completion of 20 years of the actual sentence and 25 years of the total sentence with remission.

Referring to the state's policy for a premature release of prisoners, Sonia had claimed that she had already undergone more than 21 years of the actual sentence and with remission, more than 26 years and nine months of the total sentence, while her husband had undergone over 20 years of the actual sentence and with remission, more than 25 years and nine months of the total sentence.

The petitioners had also contended that the impugned order was passed in an utter violation of the applicable policy.

The petitioners' counsel had further contended that the impugned order of the state government was defective in view of the fact that one of the grounds for declining the benefit of premature release to the petitioners was that the death sentence awarded to them was converted to life imprisonment not on merit, but on the ground of delay in deciding their mercy petition.

According to the petitioners' counsel, once a verdict has been delivered by the Supreme Court, a state-level committee is not competent to comment on the background in which the commutation of the death sentence has taken place.

The lawyer said this reference in the order was not only unwarranted but illegal as well.

According to the court order, observations beyond its jurisdiction were made by the state-level committee, that is, the recommendation that the petitioners should be kept in jail till their last breath.

"It is relevant to note that the scope of the high-level committee while making the recommendation, and of the competent authority while passing the impugned order, was limited as to whether under the policy, the benefit of remission of sentence could be awarded to the petitioners or not.

"As such, there was no authority vested either in the state-level committee or in the competent authority to enlarge the scope of the sentence awarded to the petitioners and take a decision on up to what period the petitioners would serve the sentence," the high court's order read. PTI CHS VSD RC