SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2088

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
Anil Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CRWP-827 of 2023
Decided On : 31-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. R.S. Dhull, Advocate; For the Petitioner
For the Respondent: Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.

Headnote:(A) The judgment addresses the issue of furlough eligibility under relevant penal statutes.

(B) Courts must apply a balanced consideration of past conduct and public safety when determining release on furlough.

(C) A prisoner’s previous compliance with furlough conditions is critical to assess future risks.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, serving a life sentence for serious offenses, applied for furlough after more than 10 years of imprisonment, citing previous compliance during past furloughs.

Findings of Court:
The court noted the prior history of compliance and observed that the authorities failed to consider significant factors in denying the furlough application.

Issues: The primary questions focused on the appropriateness of denying furlough based on concerns of potential non-appearance and the assessment of past conduct.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that relevant factors must be weighed comprehensively, and previous acquittals should not adversely impact considerations of furlough eligibility.

Result: The impugned order setting aside the denial of furlough was issued, allowing the petitioner to reapply.

Table of Content
1. challenge to denial of furlough (Para 1)
2. reasons for declined furlough (Para 2)
3. criminal history of petitioner (Para 3 , 4)
4. history of compliance with parole (Para 5)
5. court's stance on decision made by authorities (Para 6)
6. petition disposed - liberty to reapply (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. (Oral)

The petitioner assails order dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P-l) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Divisional Kamal, Kamal vide which the case of the petitioner for his release on furlough for 4 weeks has been declined.

2. A perusal of the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 would indicate that the petitioner's case has been declined on the apprehension that the petitioner can abscond from furlough and can commit other crimes. The relevant extract from the said order reads as under:

    ".........Prisoner has come on parole/furlough 08 times in the past. The prisoner can be absent from the furlough and can commit other crimes. The arrival of a prisoner on parole leave is not recommended by the police. There are other charges against the prisoner. In which the prisoner has been acquitted in the case by the Hon'ble Court and sentenced to 1 year in 01 case. The prisoner is out on bail in 01 case. Prisoner is serving life sentence in Kamal. The presumption has been expressed by the local police that if the prisoner is sent out, the possibility of non-appearance of the prisoner cannot be mled out. There is an objection to the release the prisoner on furlough.

    Apart from this, according to the above report presented by the police, several charges/cases have been registered against the prisoner and the possibility has been expressed by the local police that if the prisoner is sent on trial, then the possibility of the prisoner being present cannot be mled out. Prisoner Anil is not eligible for the furlough. He is not entitled for furlough. Therefore, agreeing to the above facts of the report of Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, the temporary release of prisoner Anil Kumar s/o Bam Ram is not recommended for 04 weeks."

3. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment apart from fine pursuant to judgment of conviction arising out of FIR No.207 dated 22.09.2008 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani under Sections 302 /120B/506 IPC & Sections 25 /54/59 ARMS ACT . Admittedly, the petitioner has been behind bars since the last more than 10 years.

4. A pemsal of para 3 of the reply filed on behalf of the State would indicate that the petitioner had been involved in 6 other cases out of which he stands acquitted in 5 cases and has been convicted in 1 case. The details of said cases in tabulated form are as under:

Sr. No.

FIR No.

Convicted/Acquitted

1.

FIR No.437 dated 16.10.2009 under Sections 323, 506, 34 IPC, P.S. Sadar Bhiwani

Convicted vide judgment dated 19.02.2015 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani

2.

FIR No.308 dated 05.10.2023 under section 42 of the Prisons Act, P.S. Bhondsi, Gurugram

Acquitted vide order dated 05.11.2022 passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sohana, Gurugram

3.

FIR No.474 dated 09.07.2013 under section 42 of the Prisons Act, P.S. Sadar Bhiwani

Acquitted vide order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani

4.

FIR No.297 dated 02.08.2005 under Sections 147, 149, 427, 452, 440, 506 IPC, P.S. City Bhiwani

Acquitted vide order dated 05.11.2022 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani

5.

FIR No.417 dated 13.06.2013 under section 42 of the Prisons Act, P.S. Sadar Bhiwani

Acquitted vide order dated 09.07.2018 by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani

6.

FIR No.420 dated 15.06.2013 under section 42 of the Prisons Act, P.S.Sadar Bhiwani

Acquitted vide order dated 19.12.2018 by the Court of Additional Chief Jud

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top