Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Lalit Batra, J.
Avinash @ Golu - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others - Respondents
CRWP No.1073 of 2020
Decided On : 09-07-2020
Parole - Criminal Writ Petition - The Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 - Section 3(1) - NDPS Act, 1985 - Section 22 - Summary: The court considered the petitioner's application for parole under the Act, 1962 and the denial of the same by the District Magistrate. It analyzed the provisions of the Act, 1962 and the NDPS Act, 1985, and concluded that the denial of parole was illegal, ordering the petitioner's release on parole for six weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, convicted under the NDPS Act, sought parole for six weeks due to his father's illness and subsequent death. The District Magistrate declined the request based on the petitioner's criminal background.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the denial of parole based on the petitioner's criminal background was unjustified, as the petitioner's previous acquittals and the serious illness and subsequent death of his father warranted temporary release.
Issues: The issues revolved around the denial of parole to the petitioner based on his criminal background and the interpretation of the grounds for temporary release under the Act, 1962.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of parole based on the petitioner's criminal background was unjustified, as it did not align with the provisions of the Act, 1962. It emphasized the specific grounds for temporary release and the petitioner's eligibility under those grounds.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner's release on six weeks parole, citing the provisions of the Act, 1962 and the circumstances surrounding the petitioner's application.
JUDGMENT :
Lalit Batra, J.
1. Case has been taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing due to Covid-2019.
2. This criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3 (1) (b) & (d) of The Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred as “Act, 1962”) is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 17.08.2019 (Annexure P/2) rendered by respondent No.4-District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala, vide which request for grant of parole to the petitioner for a period of six weeks, has been declined.
3. The petitioner has been convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “NDPS Act”) in case FIR No.29 dated 05.04.2017 under Section 22 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Satnampura, Phagwara, District Kapurthala, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 02.07.2018 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
4. Petitioner has impugned the legality of judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 02.07.2018, vide criminal appeal bearing CRA-S-3753-SB-2018, which is pending adjudication before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that application for grant of parole for six weeks moved by the petitioner was wrongly declined by respondent No.4 stating the reason that five FIRs have already been registered against him and, thus, he is habitual to commit heinous crimes. He further urges that as a matter of fact at the relevant time father of petitioner was suffering from acute illness and immediately after disposal of application for parole, he (father of petitioner) expired on 21.09.2019, as is evident from Death Certificate (Annexure P/3), which fact shows bona fide in the cause of petitioner. He further urges that denial of temporary release on parole to the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 17.08.2019 suffers from material illegality and, therefore, same may be set aside and the petitioner may be ordered to be released on six weeks parole as his father has expired and further sufficient cause has accrued in his favour to look after his family.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel while opposing the cause of petitioner has vehemently argued that since petitioner is having criminal background, his application for grant of six weeks parole was rightly rejected by respondent No.4 and, thus, instant petition being devoid of merit may be dismissed.
7. For ready reference, Section 3 (1) of Act, 1962, is reproduced here as under:-
(1) The State Government may, in consultation with the District Magistrate and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified in sub-section (2) any prisoner if the State Government is satisfied that:-
(a) a member of the prisoner's family has died; or
(aa) husband or wife or son or daughter or father or mother or brother or sister or grand-father or grand-mother or grandson or grand-daughter or father-in-law or mother-in-law of the prisoner is seriously ill; or
(b) the marriage of the prisoner's son or daughter is to be celebrated or;
(c) the temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operation (on his land or any other land cultivated by him) and no friend of the prisoner or a member of the prisoner's family is prepared to help him in this behalf in his absence; or
(cc) a lady prisoner is pregnant and is likely to deliver a child; or
(d) it is desirable so to do for any other sufficient cause.”
8. Though vide impugned order dated 17.08.2019, respondent No.4 had tried to depict petitioner as
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
