SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(P&H) 651

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.P.Chowdhri, J.
Krishan Kumar
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2297 of 1989,
Criminal Misc. No. 196 of 1989,199 of 1989,
Decided On : AUGUST 21, 1989

A prisoner cannot be granted parole on the basis of misrepresentation of facts and suppression of material facts.

Headnote:

PAROLE - PUNJAB GOOD CONDUCT PRISONERS (TEMPORARY RELEASE) ACT, 1962 - SECTION 3(1)(D) - COURT TERMINATED INTERIM PAROLE GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER ON THE GROUND OF MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS AND SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACTS.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an undertrial prisoner, was granted interim parole for four weeks on the ground of serious illness of his wife. The wife was admitted to the hospital and the petitioner produced medical certificates to support his claim. However, the State filed a reply stating that the wife was not admitted to the hospital during the relevant period and that the petitioner had secured release from custody with the ulterior purpose of pressurizing the witnesses.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had misrepresented the facts and suppressed material facts from the court. The court also found that the petitioner had secured release from custody with the ulterior purpose of pressurizing the witnesses.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had misrepresented the facts and suppressed material facts from the court. 2. Whether the petitioner had secured release from custody with the ulterior purpose of pressurizing the witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had misrepresented the facts and suppressed material facts from the court. The court also held that the petitioner had secured release from custody with the ulterior purpose of pressurizing the witnesses. The court relied on the following provisions of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962: * Section 2(d): defines 'prisoner' as a person confined in prison under a sentence of imprisonment. * Section 3: provides for the temporary release of prisoners on parole. * Section 3(1)(d): allows for the temporary release of prisoners on parole on the ground that a member of the prisoner's family had died or was seriously ill.

Final Decision: The court terminated the interim parole granted to the petitioner and ordered him to surrender to custody by the next day.

Judgment

A.P.Chowdhri, J.

1. In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the main prayer of the petitioner was grant of interim bail/emergency parole on the ground of serious illness of his wife who was admitted to the hospital. The averment regarding the illness of the wife was supported by affidavit of Manpal Singh Advocate, a relation of the petitioner, and medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer, General Hospital, Hansi.

2. In response to notice, appearance was put in on behalf of the respondents and the petition was adjourned twice for filing a reply. It was taken up on 2-9-1989 and again a prayer was made by the State for further adjournment. At that stage, learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for ad interim relief and the following order was passed

"Present :-

Mr. H.P S. Aulakh, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Mr. Narinder Kumar, Advocate, for the State.

No reply has been filed by the State Learned counsel prays for more time. Meanwhile, petitioner applied for emergency parole in connection with illness of his wife. This is supported by Medical Certificate, Annexure P-1, issued by the Medical Officer, General Hospital, Hansi. While adjourning the case to 30-8-1989, it is directed that the prisoner Krishan Kumar son of Bhalle Ram now lodged in Central Jail, Hissar, shall be released under section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 , for a period of four weeks on his furnishing bond and surety to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar. Dasti."

3. In pursuance of the above order, the petitioner was released on or about August 6, 1989.

4. Criminal Misc. No. 196 of 1989 was moved in the above criminal writ petition by Satpal, complainant in the main case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for being added as a party. He also filed his affidavit by way of reply to the writ petition. He was permitted. In the reply, it was stated that the wife of the petitioner was hale and hearty and in any case she was not admitted to General Hospital, Hansi. In fact, the Senior Medical Officer, Incharge of the General Hospital, Hansi, had issued a certificate, Annexure R-1, on the basis of the hospital record that petitioners wife had not been an indoor patient during the period 25-7-1989 to the date of issuing certificate i.e., 8-8-1989. It was further stated that the petitioner was a member of the joint family and his close relations including his brother were there to look after petitioners family. It was also stated that the petitioner had secured release from custody with ulterior purpose of pressurizing the witnesses who were to be examined in the murder trial on 1-1-1989. In fact, he had given threat to the complainant i.e., Satpal and one eye witness Sanjay son of Jagdish Sahai Sharma. Jagdish Sahai Sharma, father of eye-witness Sanjay, had filed an affidavit regarding the above threat before the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar. Mr. Sharma had also lodged report to the said effect with the police. It was further stated that the petitioner had applied to the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar precisely on the ground of alleged illness of his wife. His prayer was declined by the learned Sessions Judge on two occasions by orders Annexure R-2 dated 17-0-1989 and Annexure R-3 dated 29-6-1989. In the order Annexures R-2 the learned Sessions Judge expressed doubt about the genuine the ground of alleged illness of the petitioners wife and in order Annexure R-3 he pointed out that the main murder case was already fixed for trial for recording prosecution evidence for 1-9-1987 and no delay was likely to be caused.

5. In a rejoinder the petitioner stated that his wife was discharged from the hospital on 257-1989 as there was no one to attend to her and her treatment continued and she had been ultimately referred to Medical College Hospital, Rohtak, for further investigation. He stated that hit parents and brothers were






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top