Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed seeking to quash the order passed by Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate- respondent 5 denying parole to the petitioner-convict, a Single Judge Bench of Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J., allowed the petition and granted eight weeks of parole holding that the convict’s plea was denied merely on assumptions of reoffending during Elections, which would have disrupted them.
Background
In 2023, the convict was convicted by the Trial court under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS’) and sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years along with a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh. Soon after, he sought parole for eight weeks to meet his family, but it was declined by respondent 5 while relying on a report submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police – respondent 4 (‘the report’), on the following grounds:
-
Petitioner might smuggle drugs during Elections due to which the public order might be affected.
-
Petitioner could disrupt the Elections while on parole.
-
Due to the instructions of the Election Commission of India (‘ECI’) dated 10-04-2019 and the Additional DGP (Prisons) dated 30-03-2024, parole was strictly prohibited in NDPS cases.
Aggrieved, the convict filed the present petition.
Analysis
The Court stated that there was no material in support of the first two grounds, rather they were based on mere assumptions since neither any inhabitant of the locality nor some responsible person, including the Sarpanch, was involved while recording such a conclusion. Hence, the report could not form the basis for the denial of parole to the convict.
Regarding the instructions of the ECI mentioned in the third ground, the Court noted that they were issued regarding the 2019 Parliamentary Elections and despite being asked, the State was unable to show that there was any fresh circular issued by the ECI for the 2024 Parliamentary Elections, indicating absolute bar to grant parole in such a case.
Thus, the Court held that the impugned order was passed merely on the basis of surmises and assumptions, hence, it was liable to be quashed and set aside.
The Court also stated it was inclined to impose exemplary costs upon respondents 4 and 5 since a poor person was unnecessarily forced to approach this Court to seek parole. However, based on the assurance by the State that in the future, parole matters would be decided on the basis of material available on record and in accordance with law, the Court did not impose any costs.
Consequently, the petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the convict was granted parole for eight weeks, subject to furnishing indemnity/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the competent authority.
[Balvir Singh v. State of Punjab, CRWP No.7269 of 2024, decided on 15-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Satinder Kaur
For the respondent: Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG