Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
KULDEEP TIWARI, J.
Brij Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRWP No. 4147 of 2024
Decided On : 08-05-2024
PAROLE - TEMPORARY RELEASE - The court addressed the petitioner's request for parole under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, emphasizing the importance of the petitioner's prior conduct, including a previous parole violation. The court interpreted the legal provisions regarding parole eligibility and the necessity of transparency in petition submissions, ultimately concluding that the petition was not maintainable due to the petitioner's attempt to conceal relevant information and the dismissal of a prior similar petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a two-week parole for his daughter's marriage scheduled for 24.05.2024, having previously filed a similar petition that was dismissed as withdrawn. He had a history of jumping parole and was currently incarcerated after a significant delay in reporting back to jail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had concealed a relevant speaking order regarding his previous parole violation and that the new petition was an attempt to gain favor by changing the date of the marriage, which was not a valid basis for a new application.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could maintain a new petition for parole based on a change in the date of his daughter's marriage after a previous similar petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a fresh petition cannot be entertained merely on the basis of a change in circumstances when the earlier petition for the same cause was dismissed, especially in light of the petitioner's prior conduct and attempts to conceal information.
Result: The petition was dismissed, and while the court considered imposing exemplary costs for the frivolous nature of the petition, it refrained from doing so due to the petitioner's incarceration.
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.(Oral): Through the instant writ petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, prayer is made for issuance of mandamus upon the official respondents, for grant of two weeks parole to the present petitioner on occasion of marriage of his daughter, which is stated to be fixed for dated 24.05.2024, as he has already made a requisite representation to the authorities concerned on dated 10.04.2024.
2. It transpires from the record that the petitioner for the same cause of action has already approached this Court vide CRWP-2293-2024 which was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 14.03.2024, on the request of the then counsel for the petitioner.
3. Learned State counsel has produced a speaking order dated 08.03.2024, passed by a competent jail authority, which reflects that the petitioner had jumped the parole on an earlier occasion, and after registration of the fresh case, he was arrested, and now he is confined in the instant matter, since 26.01.2024, i.e. after a delay of 1043 days, (from the date of reporting back in the jail (dated 19.03.2021) after completion of his parole).
4. When learned counsel for the petitioner, was confronted, that why the aforesaid speaking order has not been placed on record while filing the instant petition, to which his answer was not satisfactory. It seems that the speaking order (supra), has been deliberately concealed from this Court, and only by changing the date of marriage of petitionere’s daughter, fresh petition has been filed.
5. This Court is unable to comprehend, how a fresh petition is maintainable merely on the change of the date of marriage, once the earlier petition for the same cause of action was dismissed as withdrawn.
6. It further reflects from the conduct of the petitioner, that attempt has been made to conceal the aforesaid relevant speaking order, from this Court, so that he could easily obtain favourable order of parole from this Court.
7. The conduct of the petitioner is highly depreciable, and cannot be appreciated.
8. Therefore, this instant petition is dismissed.
9. Though the present petitioner is liable to be burdened with an exemplary costs, for filing such a frivolous petition, but considering the fact that he is behind the bars, this Court refrains itself to do so.
A petition for parole cannot be maintained if it is based on previously dismissed claims, especially when the petitioner has a history of parole violations and attempts to conceal relevant informatio....
The court balanced the petitioner's criminal history with the significance of his presence at his daughter's wedding, ultimately granting him emergency parole for the specified dates.
The court upheld the right to emergency parole for family events while ensuring necessary security measures.
The court emphasized the importance of tangible evidence to support decisions regarding parole and considered the petitioner's eligibility for parole under the relevant provisions of The Punjab Good ....
The Court established the right to emergency parole based on exceptional family circumstances under the Kerala Prisons Rules.
Convicts entitled to emergency parole for compelling family events like daughter's marriage under prison rules.
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
