IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that judicial decisions must be respected and that the definition of hardcore prisoner under the Act did not apply to the petitioner, ensuring his right to parole.

JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

This case has a chequered history and sordid saga of arbitrary and colourable exercise of administrative power by the respondents, in application whereof, the request for grant of parole made by the petitioner has been declined.

2. Facts germane to the adjudication of issue in the present case are that the petitioner is confined in Central Jail Shri Goindwal Sahib, undergoing conviction of life imprisonment, in case FIR No.93 dated 09.09.2008, registered at Police Station Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib, under Sections 302, 363, 376, 201, 177, 34 IPC. He is convicted in the said case vide judgment dated 25.02.2010 passed by the Court of Sh. P.S. Virk, Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib.

3. The uncontroverted averments borne out from the pleadings in the criminal writ petition that petitioner has availed 14 paroles peacefully while undergoing his conviction in the above case. It is pleaded that after the amendment in Section 2(aa) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Amendment Act, 2015 notified on 07.01.2016 the petitioner was nonsuited for the grant of parole by the Jail Authorities in view of the said amendment. It is pertinent to mention that vide the said amendment it was provided that a person confined in prison under a sentence of imprisonment, who has been convicted of an offence of rape with murder under Section 376 read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, shall be treated as a hardcore prisoner. As per Section 5-A of the said Act, a hardcore prisoner is not entitled to be released on parole.

4. Averments in the criminal writ petition shows that the petitioner in pursuance to rejection of his request on parole on an earlier occasion had approached this Court, by filing a civil writ petition No.9699 of 2018. This Court vide order dated 11.09.2019 allowed the civil writ petition filed by the petitioner and held him entitled to 3 weeks parole. The order dated 11.09.2019 passed by this Court is annexed as Annexure P-4 to the present criminal writ petition. This Court in the said order has clearly and unambiguously held that Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Amendment Act, 2015, vide which definition of hardcore prisoner is amended, shall not apply to the case of petitioner, as the commission of offence by the petitioner was much prior to the said offence. While holding so this Court relied upon a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in case of Sonu @ Arun vs. State of Haryana and others in CRWP No.1078 of 2014.

5. It is not the case of any of the parties that the abovementioned judgment dated 11.09.2019 was challenged, varied or set aside in any legal proceedings. The judgment dated 11.09.2019 attained finality and decided the issue with regard to non-applicability of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Amendment Act, 2015, to the case of Petitioner finally.

6. However, the petitioner moved an application for grant of parole for agricultural purposes in the month of March, 2020. The said request of the petitioner was declined by the Magistrate by giving reason that petitioner is a hardcore criminal and as per the direction given by the committee chaired by the Hon’ble Justice R.K. Jain, constituted during the Covid-19 Pandemic period.

7. Aggrieved by the factum of the decline of his prayer for release on parole, the petitioner approached this court by filing a criminal writ petition bearing No. CRWP 1567 of 2021. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 06.08.2022 in terms of the following order:

“After hearing counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the view taken by the respondent No.2 in order dated 24.04.2020 in declining the prayer of the petitioner for the grant of the parole is not legally justified and thus, the same is set aside. The authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate order within a month in the light of the relevant instructions as on date