Back
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, SANJIV BERRY
Shiv Kumar @ Shiva – Appellant
Versus
State U. T. Chandigarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sanjiv Berry, J. (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 02.09.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by Inspector General of Prisons, U.T. Chandigarh-Respondent No.1, vide which request of petitioner for temporary release to meet his family under Section 3 (1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act of 1962') has been rejected on the ground that there is danger to the security of the State and prejudicial of the maintenance of public order.
2. A perusal of the paper book reveal that the petitioner is undergoing rigorous imprisonment of 3 years under Section 363 IPC with fine of Rs. 3000/-; RI for 05 years under Section 366 IPC with fine of Rs. 5000/-; and imprisonment for life under Section 376(2) IPC in case FIR No. 259 dated 28.06.2015 under Sections 363 , 366, 376(2) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh and the said conviction had been challenged vide appeal number CRA-D-508-DB of 2017, which is pending before this Court.
3. Upon notice of motion being issued on 29.11.2022, respond
The reformative nature of parole and the need for solid reasons to decline temporary release.
Parole cannot be denied based on mere likelihood of committing a crime, and the release should not be refused on mere generalization without specific evidence of endangering the security of the State....
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
