Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARSH BUNGER, J.
Dinesh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CRWP-1548 of 2023
Decided On : 31-07-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks a writ for parole. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's conviction details and family background. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. denial of parole based on law and order concerns. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. petitioner's argument against rejection of parole. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. state's opposition based on public interest and past conduct. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 6. explanation of legal standards for parole eligibility. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. conceptual differences among law and order, public order, and state security. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. petitioner’s satisfactory conduct warrants reconsideration of parole. (Para 24 , 25 , 27) |
| 9. court's view on the invalidity of the rejection order. (Para 28) |
| 10. court grants parole and quashes previous decision. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT
Harsh Bunger, J.
Petitioner (Dinesh) has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 3 to release him temporarily on general parole for five weeks under Section 3 (1)(2) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary release) Act, 2022 (in short 'the Act, 2022), by setting aside the order dated 26.08.2022 (Annexure P4) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal.
2. Upon issuance of notice in this case, learned State counsel appeared and filed reply dated 18.04.2023 by way of an affidavit of Sh. Amit Kumar, Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Karnal, on behalf of the respondents, which is already on record.
3. Status report dated 27.03.2023 by way of an affidavit of Sh. Vipin Kadian, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Rai, Sonipat, has also been filed on behalf of respondent No.1-State of Haryana, which is also on the record.
4. Briefly, petitioner (Dinesh) was convicted in case FIR No.82 registered on 09.05.2006 at Police Station Murthal, Sonipat, under Sections 148 , 149, 302, 307, 323, 324, 325 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short 'the IPC') vide judgment of conviction dated 25.03.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat. Vide separate order of even date, the petitioner was sentenced as under :-
| Under Section | Sentence | Fine | Period of sentence in default of payment of fine |
| 148 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years | Rs.2,000/- | Rigorous imprisonment for six months. |
| 302/149 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for life imprisonment | Rs.25,000/- | Rigorous imprisonment for two years. |
| 307/149 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for ten years | Rs.10,000/- | Rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months. |
| 325/149 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for five years | Rs.5,000/- | Rigorous imprisonment for one year. |
| 324/149 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years | Rs.2,000/- | Rigorous imprisonment for six months. |
| 323/149 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for one year | Rs.1,000/- | Rigorous imprisonment for three months. |
5. The petitioner herein challenged the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.03.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, by way of filing an appeal (CRA-D-300-DB-2008); however, the same was also dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 13.01.2012.
6. It is apposite to state here that in the afore-said case FIR No.82 dated 09.05.2006, the other co-accused of the petitioner were (i) Rakesh son of Jagbir (brother of the petitioner), (ii) Jagbir son of Ram Niwas(father of the petitioner) and (iii) Jagwanti wife of Jagbir (mother of the petitioner). It appears that the imprisonment period of Jagwanti (mother of the petitioner) has been completed. The petitioner is undergoing his sentence in the afore-said case.
7. The petitioner applied for General Parole for a period of ten weeks; whereupon, the Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat got a verification conducted through Superintendent of Police, Sonipat, who did not recommend the release of the petitioner on parole. The Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat mentioned in his report that as per re
Parole is a conditional release aimed at the reformation of convicts, and denial based solely on non-recommendation by authorities without substantial justification is impermissible.
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.
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....
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 conviction; maintaining family ties and demonstrating good conduct are paramount for rehabilitation and reform.
Parole serves to maintain family ties and facilitate rehabilitation; denial must be justified by substantial evidence of risk to public order or security.
Parole cannot be denied solely for heinous nature of offence; requires specific proof of threat to state security or public order, emphasizing reformation, family ties, and good prison conduct over c....
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
