MUMBAI: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved the petitions challenging the premature release of Sonia and Sanjeev Kumar, who were convicted in the brutal and infamous murder of former MLA Relu Ram Punia and eight members of his family.
The petitions filed by the members of the victim’s family challenge the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court's December 2025, order where directions were issued to reconsider the issue of premature release of the convicts and to grant them interim bail.
The Supreme Court had earlier issued notice in the matter and sought responses from the concerned parties.
Advocates Aaina Verma Khowal and Lal Bahadur Khowal, appearing for the victim’s family, submitted before the SC that the gravity of the offence, the conduct of the convicts in prison, their actual state of reformation, and various aspects relating to premature release were brought to the attention of the Court. They submitted that the case pertains to the murder of eight members of the same family in the year 2001, including three minor children. One of the deceased child was approximately one-and-a-half months old.
The counsel for the victim’s family further submitted that merely having undergone a long period of incarceration or having maintained good conduct during the recent years does not, by itself, create an automatic right to premature release. The convict’s overall conduct, discipline in prison, involvement in any criminal activities, the genuineness of reformation, and the impact of such release on society and the victim’s family are required to be considered cumulatively.
It was further submitted that the conduct of the convicts during their incarceration and the question of their actual reformation are also material considerations. While examining the issue of premature release, the conduct during any particular period cannot be considered in isolation from the overall prison record and circumstances of the case.
During the hearing, Justice Dipankar Datta also made significant observations on the broader issue of commuting death sentences to life imprisonment and subsequently considering the release of such convicts. Justice Datta observed that the Supreme Court’s “forgiving nature” has contributed to the situation of crime being faced by the country and that there must, at some point, be a limit to such a forgiving approach. He also observed that the Court needs to seriously consider the changing perception of offences that were earlier regarded as falling within the category of “rarest of rare” cases.
During the proceedings, the Court also considered various premature release policies and prison rules applicable in Haryana. The State placed before the Court details of the different policies governing premature release that were in force during different periods, along with their respective provisions.
It is also significant that the two convicts -- Sonia and Sanjeev -- were initially sentenced to death. Subsequently, in 2014, the Supreme Court commuted their death sentences to life imprisonment on the ground of delay in the disposal of their mercy petitions.
After hearing the submissions of both the sides, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment in the matter. Khowal told TNIE that the judgment of the Supreme Court is now awaited and may be pronounced at any time within a month or so likely.
