Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 2035

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, Deepak Manchanda, JJ.
Surender @ Choti – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CRWP-1324-2022
Decided On : 20-10-2022

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Amrita Garg, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. Ag Haryana, for the Respondent.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the eligibility of a convicted prisoner for temporary release on furlough under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, based on the statutory provisions, the petitioner's conduct, and the purpose of granting furlough as part of penal reform.

Headnote:
Furlough - Prisoner's Eligibility - Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, Section 2 (aa) (ii) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the definition of 'hardcore prisoner' under section 2 (aa) (ii) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, as amended in 2013 and 2022. It analyzed the amendments made to the Act and the criteria for granting furlough to a convicted prisoner under Section 4 of the Act. The court highlighted the legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing the petitioner's eligibility for temporary release on furlough based on his conduct and the statutory requirements.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a convicted prisoner serving a life sentence, filed a petition challenging the rejection of his furlough application under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988. The court analyzed the petitioner's criminal record, previous furlough applications, and the grounds for rejection. The petitioner's counsel argued for his eligibility for furlough based on his conduct and judicial precedents.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's furlough application under section 2 (aa) (ii) of the Act was not justified, as the offenses for which the petitioner was convicted did not meet the necessary parameters. The court also noted that the grounds presented by the respondent authorities for opposing the petitioner's temporary release were not sufficient to deny furlough. The court emphasized the petitioner's fundamental rights and the purpose of granting furlough as part of penal reform.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's eligibility for furlough under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, the interpretation of the definition of 'hardcore prisoner' under section 2 (aa) (ii) of the Act, and the grounds for rejecting the petitioner's furlough application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the statutory provisions, the petitioner's conduct during incarceration, and the purpose of granting furlough as part of penal reform. The court emphasized the petitioner's eligibility for temporary release based on the legal requirements and the absence of sufficient grounds to deny furlough.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's furlough application was set aside. The court granted the petitioner 21 days of furlough, emphasizing that the petitioner must surrender before the jail authorities at the end of the furlough period.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Manchanda, J. - The instant petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 28.01.2022 (Annexure P-13) passed by respondent No. 6 vide which the application for grant of furlough to the petitioner had been declined on the ground that the petitioner falls into the definition of a 'Hard-Core prisoner' under section 2 (aa) (ii) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 and has also sought directions to the respondents for granting furlough to the petitioner under Section 4 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988.

2. The pleadings emanate that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in case FIR No. 77 dated 25.03.2014 under section 302, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as 'IPC') and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh, District Faridabad and the conviction had been challenged vide appeal number CRA-D-435-DB of 2018, which is lying admitted before this Court. The details of other criminal cases against the petitioner are mentioned in the custody certificate in Annexure P-14 of the petition. When an earlier, request for a grant of 21 days of furlough, was declined then petitioner filed CRWP-11759-2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.01.2022 whereby respondent No. 6 was directed to decide the prayer of the petitioner for furlough within a period of one week. In compliance with, the order dated 18.01.2022 passed by this Court, the report of respondent No. 3 i.e. Superintendent, District Jail, Gurugram Haryana was sought, and respondent No. 6 vide impugned order dated 28.01.2022 rejected the furlough application of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner falls into the Hard-Core category mentioned under section 2 (aa) (ii) Of the Haryana Good Conduct (Temporary Release) Amended Act 2013, wherein total 77 cases had been registered against the petitioner, out of which in 29 cases he had undergone sentence, acquitted in 29 cases and is on bail in 17 cases. Further in two cases he has been awarded life sentence and apart from these cases, he has undergone sentence in many other cases.

3. After issuance of notice of motion on 15.02.2022 respondents, No. 1 to 3, 6 and, 7 filed their reply by way of an affidavit dated 05.05.2022, wherein the complete criminal record of the petitioner by giving complete details in para No. 3 and 4 of the said reply/affidavit has been filed and reiterated the same stand as mentioned in the order dated 28.01.2022 vide which the application of the petitioner had been declined.

4. Heard Learned counsels for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been wrongly categorised as a hard-core prisoner given in section 2 (aa) (ii) of the 1988 Act which was amended in the year 2013 and submitted that earlier also the application for parole of the petitioner was rejected on the similar ground as a mobile phone was recovered from the petitioner regarding which the FIR No. 307 dated 15.11.2017 under Section 42 of Prisoners Act 1894, registered at Bhondsi, District Gurugram was pending at that time wherein he was later acquitted. The learned counsel further argued that the definition of hard-core prisoner would not be applicable as there are no cases which falls within the parameters of the said definition and the cases which have been mentioned by the respondent State wherein he was acquitted/convicted are related to the period prior to the year 2018 and the petitioner has shown good conduct since then and has never been punished for any jail offence and his conduct has been satisfactory even as per the status report filed by the respondent No. 9. The learned counsel further argued by making a reference to para 29 and 30 mentioned in the petition and took a plea that the necessary ingredients required under section 2 (aa) (ii) of the 1988 Act are missing and as per custody certificate,