Back
PANKAJ JAIN
Taqdir – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Pankaj Jain, J.
Petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No.47 dated 19.03.2022 registered at Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar under Sections 8 & 9 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short 'the 1988 Act').
2. The petitioner was booked in FIR No.215 dated 22.06.2010 registered for offences punishable under Sections 302/307/120B IPC at Police Station City Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. While serving sentence, he was temporarily released for 25 days on agricultural parole w.e.f. 09.12.2019 in terms of release order passed by District Magistrate, Jhajjar dated 09.12.2019. He was directed to surrender on or before 04.01.2020 i.e. on expiry of 25 days agricultural parole. Petitioner approached this Court in CRWP No.2240 of 2020 seeking extension of parole. Vide order dated 28.01.2021 the parole of the petitioner was extended till 30.08.2021. The petition was finally dismissed on 21.02.2022. The petitioner opted not to surrender on 30.08.2021 (i.e. when the extension granted by this Court expired) and remained an absconder. He surrendered before Jail authorities only on 22.02.2
Acquittal does not erase prior conduct constituting an offence under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners Act, even if it takes retrospective effect.
A prisoner is not liable for penalties if prevented by sufficient cause from surrendering at the end of a parole period.
The conviction for a serious or heinous crime by itself cannot operate as an absolute bar for denying parole to the prisoner who has otherwise acquired eligibility for release on parole.
Granting parole is not a vested right of a convict prisoner and can be refused based on the prisoner's conduct and the circumstances of the case.
Parole is a concession based on good conduct, and authorities have discretion in considering parole requests, especially for 'hardcore prisoners'. The petitioner's conduct during imprisonment, includ....
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.
The court upheld the DPAC's discretion in denying parole, emphasizing the need for valid concerns regarding law and order and the applicability of the old Parole Rules of 1958.
Parole serves to maintain family ties and facilitate rehabilitation; denial must be justified by substantial evidence of risk to public order or security.
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
