Back
SURESHWAR THAKUR, DEEPAK SIBAL, ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Achan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. formulation of substantial questions of law. (Para 1) |
| 2. facts relating to the denial of parole. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. process and reasons for denying parole. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. legal provisions regarding parole denial. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. comparison of applicable legal definitions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. discussion on previous court rulings regarding parole. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. emphasis on maintaining prison discipline. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 8. principles of innocent until proven guilty. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 9. arguments against harsh penalties for mobile phone possession. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 10. constitutional implications of denying parole. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 11. requirement of evidence for penalties. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 12. discussion on fair trial principles. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 13. details about the necessity of evidence in trials. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 14. procedural safeguards to maintain fair trials. (Para 32 , 33) |
| 15. conclusion countering previous court's views. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 16. critique of the applicability of current laws. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 17. recommendations for better parole processes. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 18. decision to uphold previous findings. (Para 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 19. final |
Unauthorized possession of a mobile phone by a prisoner, without a conviction, cannot justify the denial of parole, upholding principles of fair trial under Article 21.
The court upheld the DPAC's discretion in denying parole, emphasizing the need for valid concerns regarding law and order and the applicability of the old Parole Rules of 1958.
Parole cannot be denied solely for heinous offence; must be based on endangering state security or public order. Good conduct, agricultural need, local support warrant grant despite non-recommendatio....
Parole cannot be denied solely based on the nature of the conviction; maintaining family ties and demonstrating good conduct are paramount for rehabilitation and reform.
Parole cannot be denied solely based on objections from the victim's family; solid evidence is required to substantiate claims of danger or public disorder.
Releasing authority must independently assess parole applications beyond district non-recommendation; good conduct prisoners entitled to temporary release for family ties despite serious offence, abs....
Parole cannot be denied solely based on the nature of the crime if the convict exhibits good conduct and a tendency to reform, ensuring the maintenance of family ties is critical.
Parole rejection invalid if solely based on offence nature without evidence of threat to state security or public order; releasing authority must independently assess good conduct and reform potentia....
Rejection of parole based solely on pending FIR and victim's objection held arbitrary; mere FIR registration not ground to deny; grant parole with conditions to uphold reformation and family ties eve....
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
