Granting parole is not a vested right of a convict prisoner and can be refused based on the prisoner's conduct and the circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT

Archana Puri, J. - The matter has been taken up through video conferencing in the light of COVID-19 pandemic.

2. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, thereby making a prayer for issuance of mandamus, directing the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for a period of six weeks and also sought issuance of certiorari for quashing the order dated 03.09.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Patiala.

3. The petitioner along with the fellow accused was convicted and sentenced vide JUDGMENT of sentence dated 30.03.2012, in casebearing FIR No.321 dated 14.10.2005 under Sections 120-B, 302, 34, 109 and 115 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines Patiala. Consequently, petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment in Central Jail, Patiala,.

4. It is averred in the petition that right from the date of involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid case, she is continuously confined behind the bars. She had applied for grant of parole for six weeks to the concerned authority. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, submitted the report to the District Magistrate, Patiala, to the effect that police has no objection and there is no apprehension of disturbance of peace in the area. Thereafter, another report was also submitted by the police authorities, thereby recommending grant of parole to the petitioner. However, vide impugned order dated 03.09.2020, the District Magistrate, Patiala, declined the parole to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that request for grant of parole has been wrongly declined by the District Magistrate, Patiala. In fact, it could be declined by the authorities only on the ground mentioned under Section 6 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, i.e. when her release is likely to endanger security of the State Government or maintenance of public order. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in CRM-M-34013-2009, titled as Varun @ Gullu vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 26.04.2010.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel has resisted the claim of the petitioner. He submits that in the impugned order, the District Magistrate, Patiala, has taken into consideration various circumstances, vis-a-vis conduct of the petitioner and it was only thereafter, that parole was declined.

7. It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the proceedings, when the custody certificate was produced, in pursuance of the order dated 16.03.2021, it was observed by this Court that petitioner was earlier released on two weeks' emergency parole on 06.12.2014 and was due to surrender on 21.12.2014 but she misused the concession of parole and was arrested on 04.02.2015 from Nepal border, allegedly along with certain fake documents. In these circumstances, the Superintendent of Police, who had recommended the case of the petitioner for parole, was directed to file an affidavit detailing the circumstances, which led to the recommendation of the parole case of the petitioner.

8. Thereupon, Sh.Varun Sharma, IPS, Superintendent of Police (City), Patiala, in compliance of the aforesaid order, had furnished an affidavit, wherein, it is stated about the petitioner to have been earlier released on emergency parole but she had not surrendered before the jail authorities, on expiry of the parole period. Rather, she evaded the process of law and was apprehended from Nepal border and the same resulted into registration of another FIR against the petitioner. However, keeping in view the directions given by this Court in CRM-M-34013-2009 and also about deferment of parole plea for a period of one year in the circumstances of overstaying of a prisoner released on parole, as observed in CRM-M-32124-2008, it was stated in the affidavit that the case of the petitioner for release on parole was considered and recommendation for extending parole to the petitioner, as such, was made.

9. The remission and parole ar