Punia family murder case: HC orders interim bail while premature release claim is reconsidered

More than two decades after former legislator Relu Ram Punia’s daughter Sonia and her husband Sanjiv Kumar were convicted for killing him and seven of his family, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed their released on interim bail pending decision on their premature release by the competent authority.

The order by Justice Surya Partap Singh came on two petitions filed by them. They were seeking the quashing of orders issued in August 2023 rejecting their prayer for premature release. Justice Surya Partap Singh observed the petitioner was sent to stand trial for murder and other offence. The trial culminated into conviction vide judgment dated May 27, 2004. The two were subsequently awarded death penalty. But the high court commuted the sentence to life imprisonment.

The Supreme Court, however, reversed the finding and converted life imprisonment to death sentence again. The apex court asserted: “The instant case is one wherein accused Sonia, along with accused Sanjiv — her husband — has not only put an end to the lives of her step brother and his whole family, which included three tiny tots — aged 45 days, two-and-a-half years and four years — but also her own father, mother and sister, in a very diabolic manner so as to deprive her father from giving the property to her step brother and his family. The fact that the murders in question were committed in such a diabolical manner while the victims were sleeping, without any provocation whatsoever from the victims’ side, indicates the cold‑blooded and premeditated approach of the accused to cause the deaths of the victims.”

A reviews petition against the judgment dated February 15, 2007, was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Even the mercy petition was dismissed by the Governor and the President. “After the rejection of mercy petition, a writ petition was filed by the present petitioner and vide judgment dated January 21, 2014, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to a sentence for life imprisonment,” Justice Surya Partap Singh observed.

The counsel contended the conviction was recorded in May 2004. As such, premature release policy dated April 12, 2002, was applicable. “With regard to commission of heinous offence, the convicts, whose death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, were entitled to be considered for premature release on completion of 20 years of actual sentence and 25 years of total sentence with remission,” the Bench was told. It was added that the total period of actual sentence undergone by the petitioner was more than 23 years and 10 months. The total custody period, including remission, was of more than 28 years and 10 months.

The Bench asserted the impugned order was patently perverse, illegal, unsustainable in the eyes of law deserved to be set aside. “The 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 petition strictly in view of policy dated April 12, 2002, as well as the observations in this judgment, within a period of two months”.