Relu Ram Punia murder case: 20 years on, HC grants interim bail to convicts

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

The order was based on two petitions filed by them, seeking the quashing of orders issued in 2023, rejecting their prayer for premature release. They were awarded the death penalty following the culmination of the trial in 2004. However, the high court commuted the sentence to life imprisonment.

The Supreme Court, which reversed the finding, converted it back to death sentence, stating, “...Sonia, along with accused Sanjiv—her husband—has not only put an end to the lives of her stepbrother and his whole family, which included three tiny tots of 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 stepbrother and his family.”

A review petition dated February 15, 2007, was dismissed by the Supreme Court; and the mercy petition was dismissed by the Governor and the President. “After the rejection of the 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 that the conviction was recorded in 2004, and as such, the premature release policy of 2002 was applicable. He told the Bench the convicts were entitled to be considered for premature release on the completion of 20 years of the actual sentence and 25 years of the total sentence with remission. The total period of actual sentence served by them was over 23 years, and the total custody period, including remission, was over 28 years and 10 months.

The Bench stated that the impugned order, which was perverse, illegal and unsustainable, deserved to be set aside. “The petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside, with a direction to the respondents/authorities to consider the case of premature release...strictly in view of the policy dated April 12, 2002, as well as the observations in this judgment, within two months.”