Gurbaksh Singh vs State of Punjab - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2070

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2070

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, GURBIR SINGH, JJ.
Gurbaksh Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRWP-1256 of 2023
Decided On : 09-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tejaswini, Advocate; For the Petitioner
For the Respondent: Mr. Navneet Singh, Senior DAG, Punjab.

Headnote:(A) Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 - Section 3(1)(aa) - Parole application rejected on grounds of petitioner's criminal history as an 'A-Category Gangster' and concerns of public safety - Court affirmed that appellant's request lacked sufficient justification due to absence of medical records proving serious illness of mother and potential risk associated with granting parole. (Paras 1, 4, 12, 18)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Apprehensions regarding a prisoner's return to custody and public safety are critical in parole decisions, alongside consideration of familial obligations. (Paras 5, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, convicted of murder under various sections, applied for parole to care for his seriously ill mother, which was denied citing danger to public safety and criminal backdrop.

Findings of Court:
The order rejecting parole was upheld due to the petitioner's extensive criminal history and lack of proof of immediate necessity for release as asserted.

Issues: The validity of denying parole based on prior criminality and alleged threat to public order versus the need for family interaction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized balancing the need for family support against the potential risks to societal safety, stating, 'kindness to the petitioner does not result in cruelty to any other member of society'.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Gurbir Singh, J.

Prayer in this petition is for setting aside order dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure P-1), whereby prayer to grant parole for a period of eight weeks under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as - the Punjab Act No.11 of 1962), was rejected, with a further prayer for grant of eight weeks' parole to the petitioner under Section 3(1)(aa) of the Punjab Act No.11 of 1962.

2. The petitioner was tried as accused in case FIR No.31 dated 30.03.2014, under Sections 302 , 341, 392, 506, 120-B, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25 , 27 of the ARMS ACT , registered at Police Station Jaitu, District Faridkot, along with other persons. Vide judgment dated 16.11.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Faridkot (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was convicted under Section 302 /34 IPC and was ordered to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner sought parole for eight weeks in order to meet his mother who was suffering from Burst Acute Appendicitis with Peritonitis and Shock. A copy of Medical Certificate of his mother has been annexed with this petition as Annexure P-3.

4. Respondent no.2 i.e. Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Faridkot rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that the petitioner is a "A- Category Gangster" and is having rivalry in the village. Upon coming on parole, he can resort to altercation and commit other crime. There was apprehension that the petitioner, after enjoying parole, may not return to jail and is in danger of his jumping parole. There was fear of him causing disturbance of peace and security to the State.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent no.2 did not verify from the Panchayat whether any element or apprehension of unrest existed in the village if the petitioner was to be released on parole. The Gram Panchayat of village of the petitioner has issued a Panchayatnama (Annexure P-4) and recommended to grant eight weeks' parole to the petitioner. Perusal of the Panchayatnama reflects that the petitioner is the only living male member as his brother and father have expired and petitioner is required to take care of his ailing mother as his mother has met with an accident and has suffered multiple blunt injuries and head injury. Her medical certificate issued by the concerned doctor has been annexed as (Annexure P-5). There is no such apprehension of unrest in the village if the petitioner is released on parole. The impugned order was passed by respondent no.2 in the most mechanical manner without any application of mind and without giving any cogent reasons. The factum of ill health of his mother has not been taken into consideration in any manner. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was arrested in the year 2017 and he is in custody since then. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon CRWP 3196 of 2022 (O&M) titled Mahammad Shehbaz v. State of Punjab & Ors. and CRWP 8505 of 2022 titled Karamjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., where the petitioners in the said cases were given benefit of parole to meet their families.

6. Status report by way of affidavit of Gurdeep Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Jaitu, District Faridkot along Custody Certificate has already been filed on behalf of respondent-State, which is ordered to be taken on record.

7. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner submitting that there was history of blood-shed due to rivalry between two families, which had resulted in the murder of Ranjit Singh - brother of the petitioner and then, to take revenge of death of his brother, the petitioner killed two innocent people of the opposite party.