Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 2089
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
Ajmer – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CRWP-9698 of 2022
Decided On : 06-01-2023
Subject
Criminal Law - Prisoner Rights
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Judicial Review - Courts to evaluate decisions made by authorities in light of previous conduct and established legal precedents. (Paras 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the order denying parole, citing prior successful releases and indicating no recent conduct suggesting potential disturbances.
Findings of Court:
The court determined the prior grant of parole and the absence of any behavior indicating a breach of peace warranted a different decision, instructing a fresh evaluation of the parole request.
Issues: The core issue was whether prior successful parole conclusions could outweigh concerns about potential future incidents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that prior behavior is significant in the decision to grant parole, emphasizing the need to consider established judicial precedents guiding such evaluations.
Result: The impugned order is set aside, directing a fresh review within one month.
Mr. Susheel Gautam, Advocate; For the Petitioner
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's application for parole decline. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments against and in support of parole. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court considers submissions. (Para 4) |
| 4. order set aside; case for fresh consideration. (Para 5) |
| 5. direction for expeditious resolution. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. (Oral)
The petitioner assails order dated 16.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal (respondent No.2) vide which an application moved by the petitioner seeking grant of regular parole for 10 weeks under provisions of Section 3 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 has been declined.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's application has been declined vide impugned order solely on the ground that in case the petitioner is released on parole, some untoward incident can happen and on account of which the atmosphere of the society/village would be affected and peace would be hampered. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had been granted parole on 7 different occasions previously and had always surrendered back in time and that there is no such allegation or conduct on his part during the last more than 5 years from which it could be inferred that he would hamper peace. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard has drawn the attention of this Court to para 3 of the reply on merits filed by the State, wherein the details of the parole/furlough availed off by the petitioner on previous occasions have been mentioned as follows:
| S. No. | Type of Leave | Duration of Parole/Furlough | Remarks |
| (i) | 4 Weeks Parole | 20.12.2011 to 18.01.2012 | Reported back on due date & time |
| (ii) | 11 days Parole | 16.04.2021 to 28.04.2012 | Reported back on due date & time |
| (iii) | 3 Weeks Furlough | 18.02.2016 to 11.03.2016 | Reported back on due date & time |
| (iv) | 4 Weeks Parole | 22.06.2016 to 21.07.2016 | Reported back on due date & time |
| (v) | 4 Weeks Parole | 12.04.2019 to 11.05.2019 | Reported back on due date & time |
| (vi) | 2 Weeks Furlough | 29.10.2021 to 13.11.2021 | Reported back on due date & time |
| (vii) | 2 Weeks Furlough | 17.02.2022 to 04.03.2022 | Reported back on due date & time |
3. Learned State counsel has, however, opposed the petition on the ground that in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 and the specific report of the Superintendent of Police concerned regarding likelihood of some untoward incident, no case for release of the petitioner on parole is made out.
4. This Court has considered rival submissions.
5. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner had been granted parole on as many as 7 previous occasions and had always surrendered back in time and there is no such conduct on his part, which could be said to be any pointer as regards apprehension of breach of peace, the impugned order dated 16.09.2022 cannot sustain and is hereby set aside. The authorities concerned are directed to decide the matter afresh while duly taking into account the ratio of judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in CRWP-1350-2022 titled ' Phool Kumar v. State of Haryana & others' on 25.04.2022.
6. The needful exercise be done expeditiously within a period of one month from today.
