Punjab and Haryana High Court: In the case where the petitioner had filed the petition seeking to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 10-04-2023, passed by Respondent 3-District Magistrate, Ferozepur, and seeking directions to release him for eight-week parole to enable him to meet his family members and to settle household affairs, the Division Bench of Lisa Gill and Amarjot Bhatti, JJ., noted that as per the impugned order, petitioner was not granted temporary parole because he could indulge in smuggling of narcotics, and he might also abscond during parole. The Court stated that such mere apprehension was not a valid ground for rejection of application filed by petitioner seeking parole. To consider the question that whether the petitioner’s release on parole was likely to endanger security of State or maintenance of public order, cogent material to indicate the same had to available, rather than mere registration of various cases against the petitioner.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order as being unsustainable, with further directions to Respondent 3 to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner seeking parole.
Background
The FIR dated 23-08-2015 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’). Subsequently, vide judgment dated 04-01-2019, petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 29 of the NDPS Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eleven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,50,000.
Petitioner applied for applied for eight-weeks parole to Respondent 4-jail authorities along with Panchayat Nama under Section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 to meet his family members and look-after household affairs. The jail forwarded this application to Respondent 3 and Respondent 2-Director General of Police, Jail Department, Punjab, Chandigarh. However, vide order dated 10-04-2023, Respondent 3 rejected the parole application and made a reference of three other cases registered against the petitioner.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that normally temporary release on parole or furlough was granted, but it could be declined if releasing authority was of the view that such release would be dangerous to security of the State or maintenance of public order. Further, the Court stated that the main purpose of parole was that a prisoner could maintain continuity together with his family, friends and community and at the same time also save prisoner from harmful effects of continuous prisoner life. Parole enables a prisoner to develop a feeling of self-confidence that there is a life beyond prison and develop a sense of hope and active interest in his life with a view to rehabilitate the prisoner.
The Court opined that competent authority could always impose sufficient and necessary conditions while granting parole. The Court noted that as per the impugned order, petitioner was not granted temporary parole because he could indulge in smuggling of narcotics, and he might also abscond during parole. The Court opined that such mere apprehension was not a valid ground for rejection of application filed by petitioner seeking parole. To consider the question that whether the petitioner’s release on parole was likely to endanger security of State or maintenance of public order was carried by the competent authority, cogent material to indicate the same had to available, rather than mere registration of various cases.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order as being unsustainable, with further directions to Respondent 3 to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner seeking parole.
[Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, CRWP 5395 of 2023, Order dated 06-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Navjot Singh, Advocate;
For the Respondent: H.S. Deol, Senior DAG, Haryana.
