2023:PHHC:145153

1

CRWP-8054-2023

(244)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRWP-8054-2023 (O & M)

Date of decision: 15.11.2023

Kailash

.... Petitioner

V/s

The State of Haryana and ors.

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:

Mr. Susheel Gautam, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajiv Goel, DAG, Haryana.

*****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI,

J. (Oral)

The prayer in the present petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is for the issuance of a writ, order or direction for

setting aside the order dated 14.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the

Commissioner, Karnal Division, District Karnal.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No. 381 dated

24.02.2022 under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, Police Station City Panipat,

District Panipat came to be registered against the petitioner and on

conclusion of the trial, the petitioner came to be convicted and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 02 years.

SUKHPREET KAUR

2023.11.17 17:21

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:145153

2

CRWP-8054-2023

(244)

3.

The convict (petitioner) preferred a Criminal Appeal No.S-776-

SB-2005 before this Court and vide judgment dated 27.04.2022, his appeal

came to be dismissed after which the petitioner was re-admitted in Jail on

09.11.2022.

4.

The petitioner submitted an application for the grant of 10

weeks’ parole in the office of respondent No.4-Superintendent Jail, District

Jail, Panipat which was forwarded to the concerned authorities i.e.

respondents No.2, 3 and 5 for verification. The Superintendent of Police,

Aager Malwa, District Aager Malwa (respondent No.5) vide his report dated

14.05.2023 did not recommend the release of the petitioner on parole on the

grounds that the petitioner was likely to cause breach of peace and would not

come back to surrender, if so released.

5.

Based on the aforementioned report, the sanctioning authority

i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal did not sanction

parole to the petitioner vide order dated 14.07.2023 (Annexure P-1).

6.

It is this order which is under challenge in this petition.

7.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ground

on which parole has been denied to the petitioner is untenable. Mere

apprehension of breach of peace or the likelihood of the convict committing

a similar offence or absconding if granted parole without any corresponding

material on record would not be sufficient to reject the prayer of the convict.

In the instant case, the petitioner had been convicted and had preferred an

appeal before this Court. He had been granted the concession of suspension

of sentence. After his appeal had been dismissed, he had surrendered and

was re-admitted to Jail on 09.11.2022. Therefore, the apprehension of the

SUKHPREET KAUR

2023.11.17 17:21

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:145153

3

CRWP-8054-2023

(244)

petitioner absconding was completely unfounded. Reliance is placed on the

judgments in ‘Narinder Singh @ Nindi versus State of Punjab and others

2020(2) DC (Narcotics) 253’ and ‘Kapil versus State of Haryana and

others (CRWP-7247-2023 decided on 17.10.2023)’.

8.

The learned counsel for the State while referring to the reply

dated 02.09.2023 contends that the Superintendent of Police, Aager Malwa,

District Aager Malwa (Madhya Pradesh) had clearly not recommended the

release of the petitioner on parole as the petitioner was likely to cause breach

of peace and would not come back, if so released. Therefore, the impugned

order had rightly been passed which did not warrant any interference and the

prayer of the petitioner was liable to be rejected.

9.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

10.

In the present case, the application of the petit