The High Court of Punjab and Haryana set aside the order of the trial court which rejected the petitioner’s appeal for parole on the ground that his release might lead to his running away/absconding from parole by shifting/changing his residence and held that the likelihood of absconding while on parole is not a sufficient ground to decline temporary release on parole as mere likelihood of committing a crime is not to be taken as apprehension of a threat to security of State or maintenance of public order.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34, 10 years under Section 364/34 IPC and six months under Section 120-B/34 IPC applied for ten weeks' parole to meet his family members during the pendency of his appeal against the order of his conviction which was rejected. The petitioner then filed the present criminal against this impugned order.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner is entitled to be released on parole under Section 3 of the Haryana Goods Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 as he fulfilled the conditions for regular parole as mentioned in Section 3 (3) of the Act. It was submitted that the petitioner has not availed parole earlier and is seeking to meet his family members for the first time and father of the petitioner had already died and his aged mother along with other members is residing at the given address on rent and further conduct of the petitioner has remained good inside the jail throughout. It was further argued that the prayer for release has been rejected on the grounds of the possibility of his absconding from parole by changing his residence, without any material to support such an assumption.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that remission and furlough are not vested rights of the petitioner and further while affirming that as per record petitioner has not availed any furlough/parole till date and has undergone 11 years, 02 months and 05 days of total sentence, and as per Section 3(1) (2) of the Act, petitioner is eligible for consideration of his case for grant of parole, dismissal of the petition is sought.
Observations of the court:
The court referred to Section 3 of the Haryana Goods Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 and stated that competent authority may pass an order directing temporary release of a prisoner and as per the procedure prescribed, Competent Authority therein) has to verify facts and grounds on which temporary release has been requested and further referred to Section 8 to state that if the case convict is eligible in terms of the conditions as prescribed in Section 11 of the Act, parole can be denied only in case if his release is likely to endanger security of the State, maintenance of public order or cause reasonable apprehension of breach of peace.
The court then referred to the impugned order which rejected the application of parole of the petitioner on the ground that his release might lead to his running away/absconding from parole by shifting/changing his residence and stated that even in a situation where there is apprehension of breach of peace or maintenance of public order or endangerment of security of the State on account of release of the convict, it is the duty of the competent authority to apply its mind on the basis of inputs received by them before allowing or denying the benefit in question and there has to be tangible material to arrive at such conclusion and the application of parole in the present case had not been rejected as per Section 8.
It was stated that temporary release is not a vested right and the same is available in accordance with the applicable provisions, however, once eligibility conditions are fulfilled, the benefit can be denied only in accordance with Section 8 of the Act which has not been complied with in the present case and a sweeping declaration has been made that convict may abscond from parole by shifting or changing his place of residence and apart from the fact that the same is not a valid ground for denial of parole, there is no evidence for such apprehension as well and the likelihood of absconding while on parole is not a sufficient ground to decline temporary release on parole as the mere likelihood of committing a crime is not to be taken as apprehension of a threat to the security of State or maintenance of public order.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order and released the petitioner on parole.
Case Title: Kapil vs. State of Punjab and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Lisa Gill and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ritu Tagore
Case No.: CRWP-7247-2023 (O&M)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Hoshiar Singh Jaswal
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Deepak Grewal
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
