Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 3374
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RITU BAHRI, MANISHA BATRA, JJ.
Pardeep – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CRWP-409 of 2023
Decided On : 29-05-2023
Mr. R.S.Dhull, Advocate; For the Petitioner
For the Respondent: Mr. Pawan Girdhar, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Punjab Good Conduct Imprisoners' (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 - Petition for parole - Rejection of parole request on grounds of potential disturbance to State security deemed unsubstantiated by the court - The petitioner had been sentenced to life imprisonment and sought parole for familial reasons. The court emphasized that the apprehension of law and order disturbance lacks supportive evidence - Petition allowed. (Paras 1, 7, 8)
(B) Grounds for parole - The only stated reason for denying parole to the petitioner was an unsubstantiated fear regarding disturbance of public order, which does not suffice as a basis for rejection. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted of serious offenses resulting in life imprisonment and sought parole to meet family members. The request was denied citing possible threats to public order without adequate justification.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the justification for the denial was not backed by substantial evidence and ruled in favor of the petitioner’s request for parole.
Issues: Validation of the grounds for parole denial concerning public order and State security, specifically the lack of substantiation for such claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere apprehension regarding law and order is insufficient for parole rejection if not substantiated with concrete evidence, thereby upholding the right to temporary release under the applicable statute.
Result: Petition allowed; the order dated 05.12.2022 set aside and petitioner released on parole for four weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's conviction and parole request (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for and against parole (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of the grounds for parole (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. order for granting parole (Para 8) |
| 5. conditions for parole release (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
Manisha Batra, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-Pardeep under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 05.12.2022, passed by the Superintendent, office of Divisional Commissioner, Faridabad Division, Faridabad (Annexure P-1) whereby the request of the petitioner for grant of parole had been rejected.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that he was held guilty and convicted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind vide judgment dated 22.08.2019 in case bearing i) FIR No.167, dated 20.08.2015 registered under Sections 396 , 201 of IPC and Section 25 of the ARMS ACT , 1959 registered at Police Station Lakhan Majra, Rohtak. He had been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Appeal bearing No.CRA-D-909-DB-2019 has been filed by him against the said judgment, which is pending before this Court. In case bearing FIR No.175, dated 05.08.2015 registered under Sections 307 /34, 120B, 307 IPC and Section 25 /54/59 of the ARMS ACT , 1959 registered at Police Station Julana, he had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years (this sentence started on 17.03.2022 concurrently with sentence in case FIR No. 167/2015 being life imprisonment).
3. The petitioner approached respondent No.2 to release him on parole for 04 weeks to meet the family members. Respondent No.4 after receiving the report from concerned police Station, did not recommend the parole case of the petitioner and rejected the same vide the impugned order dated 05.12.2022. Feeling aggrieved, he has filed the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not met his family members for a long time and has prayed that he be released on parole for a period of 6 weeks.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by petitioner by way of reply filed in the Court, along with custody certificate, which are taken on record. As per the custody certificate dated 01.05.2023, the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 3 years, 6 months and 10 days. The parole case of the petitioner was duly initiated and was rejected by the Superintendent, Divisional Commissioner, Faridabad Division, Faridabad on the ground that there were chances of petitioner's disturbing the State security and maintenance of public order if extended benefit of parole. Hence, it was urged that the petition did not deserve to be allowed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. As per the reply submitted by the State, the petitioner has concealed the true facts in the present petition. The only reason given by respondent No.2 for rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner is that his release might disturb the law and order and may lead to danger to the State security. This apprehension, however, is not substantiated by any material and hence, cannot be made a ground to reject the prayer made by the petitioner. It is relevant to mention that Section 3(1)(aa) of the Punjab Good Conduct Imprisoners' (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, permits temporary release of prisoner on parole on the grounds as mentioned therein.
8. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, the petition is hereby allowed. Impugned order dated 05.12.2022 is set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a period of four weeks subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned District Magistrate .
9. Concerned District Magistrate, may impose such conditions as may be necessary to secure the presence of the petitioner in jail after the parole is over and to ensure that the temporary release is not misused.
