Denial of parole must be based on substantial evidence related to security and public order; mere speculative fears are insufficient to withhold a convict's eligibility.

Judgment

Mrs. Ritu Tagore, J.

Prayer in this petition is for quashing the order dated 06.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1-Divisional Commissioner Ambala, District Ambala (Sanctioning Authority), whereby petitioner’s request for releasing him on regular parole for ten weeks has been rejected.

2. Petitioner along with others was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 /34, 10 years under Section 364/34 IPC and six months under Section 120-B/34 IPC by the learned trial Court Palwal. Criminal Appeal No.730-DB of 2016 against said conviction and sentence is pending for adjudication. The petitioner applied for ten weeks parole to meet his family members. Same was rejected vide impugned order dated 06.07.2023 (Annexure P-1). Aggrieved therefrom, present criminal petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled to be released on parole under Section 3 of Haryana Goods Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 (for short, the ‘Act’) as he fulfills the conditions for regular parole as mentioned in Section 3 (3) of the Act. He has not availed parole earlier and is seeking to meet his family members for the first time. It is submitted that father of the petitioner had already died and his aged mother along with other members is residing at the given address on rent. It is further submitted that conduct of the petitioner has remained good inside the jail throughout. The learned counsel submits that impugned order dated 06.07.2023 is absolutely unjustified and arbitrary. Prayer for release has been rejected on the ground of possibility of his absconding from parole by changing his residence, without any material to support such an assumption. It is contended that impugned order is absolutely illegal, in contravention of the applicable provisions, hence is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the State, however opposed prayer of the petitioner on the ground that parole case of the petitioner was rightly rejected by respondent No.1 on the basis of report of Police Commissioner, Gaziabad (UP), respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Gaziabad, UP, who had not recommended release of the petitioner on parole, observing that he might abscond from parole by shifting/changing his residence, causing impediment in legal response. Learned State counsel also contended that remission and furlough are not vested rights of the petitioner. While affirming that as per record petitioner has not availed any furlough/parole till date and has undergone 11 years, 02 months and 05 days of total sentence, and as per Section 3 (1) (2) of the Act, petitioner is eligible for consideration of his case for grant of parole, dismissal of the petition is sought.

5. Heard.

6. Temporary release of the prisoners is considered in terms of Section 3 of the Act (ibid), which is reproduced as under:-

“3. Temporary release of convicted prisoner on regular parole on certain conditions:-

(1) The competent authority shall grant regular parole to a convicted prisoner subject to such conditions and procedure as specified under sections 11 and 12.

(2) The period for which a convicted prisoner may be released under this section shall be ten weeks in a calendar year cumulatively and the convicted prisoner may avail it in two parts:

Provided that in case of delivery of a female convicted prisoner, the period of release under this section shall be six months, beginning from one month prior to the expected date of delivery as certified by the Medical Officer of the jail.

(3) Convicted prisoner who has not completed on