Chandigarh, Dec. 12 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court has ordered release of Sonia and her husband, Sanjeev Kumar, convicted for killing eight family members, including Sonia's father, on interim bail and directed the Haryana government to consider their premature release case within two months. The duo had killed Relu Ram Punia (50), his wife Krishna Devi (41), daughter (14), son Sunil Kumar (23), daughter-in-law Shakuntala Devi (20), a four-year-old grandson and two granddaughters, including a two-month-old baby, at their farmhouse on the outskirts of Hisar on August 23, 2001, while they were asleep. Punia had won assembly election from Barwala segment in Hisar in 1996 and was a millionaire. Sonia was found unconscious in her room the next day as she had consumed some poisonous substance. The family had celebrated the birthday of their 14-year-old daughter that night, who was brought back by Sonia from a hostel. As per prosecution post mid-night, Sonia and Sanjeev got an iron rod from the garage and killed the family members in different rooms. Prosecution had alleged that there was a property dispute between Sonia and her brother Sunil, son of the first wife of Punia, the reason cited behind these killings. The trial court in Hisar awarded the death penalty to both of them in May 2004. The HC commuted the death penalty to life sentence while answering the murder reference sent by the sessions court, Hisar, in April 2005. This judgment was challenged in the Supreme Court by the state government and in February 2007, the apex court reversed the HC order and awarded the death sentence. Both of them filed a review petition, which was dismissed in August 2007 by the apex court. The mercy petition was filed before the governor but dismissed in October 2007 and another petition filed before the President, seeking mercy, was also dismissed in July 2013. After rejection of the mercy petition, the duo approached the Supreme Court and in January 2014, their death sentence was commuted to life sentence on grounds of delay in deciding the mercy petition. Both have served more than 23 years and 10 months and the total custody period, including remission, of more than 28 years and 10 months. They had approached the state government seeking premature release, which was rejected with a further direction that they shall remain in jail till their last breath, in August 2024. It was this order they had challenged in the HC, as per lawyer Sahil Choudhary. The additional chief secretary (competent authority) concerned had passed the rejection order on the recommendation of a state-level committee empowered to look into cases of premature releases. Their argument was that the premature release policy of April 2002, applicable in their case, entitles them to be considered for premature release on completion of 20 years of actual sentence and 25 years of total sentence with remission. Both have already undergone actual sentences of more than 21 years and total sentence with remission of more than 26 years. Hence, they be released. The bench of justice Surya Partap Singh said the competent authority "transgressed into the jurisdiction" while deciding their application and was having "prejudiced mind" and discussed the quality of evidence in its order. "The quality of evidence .has to be discussed either by the learned trial court or the court dealing with appeal. (The competent authority)... is not supposed to look into the quality of evidence," it said. It said that the committee recommended that they should be kept in jail till their last breath. But its scope was limited to whether under the policy, the benefit of remission of sentence could be awarded to the petitioner or not. "Once the verdict of the SC was there and with regard to period to which the petitioner is to undergo sentence, statutory provisions and policy were already there, it was not within the competence of state-level committee, while making a recommendation or competent authority while passing the impugned order, that the period of sentence to be undergone by the petitioner could have been enlarged," it said. "If the facts and circumstances pertaining to the present case are analysed in the light of principles of law, 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 bench said directing that their cases be considered as per April 2002 policy and judgments of the courts passed in similar matters within a period of two months. Till the time decision is taken regarding premature release both have been ordered to be released on interim bail....