PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur and Lalit Batra, JJ.
Achan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab And Others – Respondent
CRWP No. 3259 of 2024
Decided on : 27-05-2024
JUDGMENT :
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the quashing of the order dated 6.3.2024 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner's prayer for his becoming released, on parole for a period of eight weeks, has been declined. The petitioner also seeks the relief of parole under Sections 3 and 4 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners' (Temporary Release) Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act of 1963').
2. The present petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court concerned, to undergo life imprisonment, in case bearing FIR No. 06 of 4.2.2017, registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC, at Police Station Begowal. The above made verdict of conviction, and, consequent thereto sentence(s) (supra), as became imposed upon the convict, has been challenged by him through his rearing a criminal appeal bearing No. CRA-D-697 of 2021, before this Court.
3. During the pendency of the appeal (supra) before this Court, the convict preferred an application, claiming thereins the relief of his becoming released on parole, lasting upto a duration of eight weeks, rather for the relevant purpose. The authority concerned, after eliciting the report of the police officer concerned, has made a declining order on the relevant application, and, the above declining order, which becomes enclosed in Annexure P-1 to the instant petition, has led the petitioner to access this Court.
4. Before proceeding to determine the validity of the declining order (Annexure P-1), as became passed by the competent authority concerned, it is necessary to allude to the provisions relating to the granting of parole to a convict-prisoner. The said rules/statutory provisions become embodied in Section 3 of the Act of 1963.
"Procedure for temporary release. [Sections 3,4,10(1), 10(2) (b), 10(2) (d) and 10(2)(e)].
(1) A prisoner desirous of seeking temporary release under section 3 or section 4 of the Act shall make an application in Form A-1 or Form A-2, as the case may be, to the Superintendent of Jail. Such an application may also be made by an adult member of the prisoner's family.
(2) The Superintendent of Jail shall forward the application along with his report to the District Magistrate, who after consulting the Superintendent of Police of his District, shall forward the case with his recommendations to the Inspector General. The Inspector General will then record his views on the case whether the prisoner is to be released or not and submit the same to the Releasing Authority for orders. The Distt. Magistrate, before making any recommendation, shall verify the facts and grounds on which release has been requested and shall also give his opinion whether the temporary release on parole or furlough is opposed on grounds of prisoner's presence being dangerous to the security of State or prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
(3) If after making such enquiry as it may deem fit, the Releasing Authority is satisfied that the prisoner is entitled to be released under the Act, the Releasing Authority may issue to the Superintendent of Jail through the Inspector-General a duly signed and sealed warrant in Form B ordering the temporary release of the prisoner, specifying therein (1) period of release, (ii) the place or places which the prisoner is allowed to visit during the period of such temporary release, and the amount for which the security bond and the surety bond shall be furnished by the prisoner in Forms C and D respectively:
Provided that the amount of the security bond and the surety bond shall not exceed twenty thousand rupees in each case.
(4) On receipt of the release warrant the Superintendent of Jail shall inform the prisoner concerned and such member of the prisoner's family as the prisoner may specify in that behalf for making arrangements for execution of the security and surety bonds in Forms C and D respectively for securing the release of the prisoner. A copy of the release warrant shall a
Unauthorized possession of a mobile phone by a prisoner, without a conviction, cannot justify the denial of parole, upholding principles of fair trial under Article 21.
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.
Parole cannot be denied solely for heinous offence; must be based on endangering state security or public order. Good conduct, agricultural need, local support warrant grant despite non-recommendatio....
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 – Convicts have right to breathe fresh air for short periods – Any objection raised by local inhabitants/relative cannot be sole determinative basis for refusing parole.
Parole cannot be denied solely based on the nature of the crime if the convict exhibits good conduct and a tendency to reform, ensuring the maintenance of family ties is critical.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.