Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/459/2020 on 24 February, 2021
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy, Ravi Malimath
CWP No. 459 of 2020
24.02.2021 Present: Mr. Guna Nand Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
.
Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. Adarsh K.
Sharma and Ms. Ritta Goswami, Additional Advocates
General, for respondents No. 1 to 4-State.
Sh. Daya Ram, HHC, Model Central Jail, Nahan, is
present in person.
Petitioner is serving sentence for the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 20, 27-A, 27-B, 29 and 60 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, pursuant to the
judgment/order dated 26.07.2017, passed in Sessions Trial No. 05
of 2016, by the learned Special Judge-II, Kullu District at Kullu, H.P.,
whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10
years and a fine of ` 1.00 lac.
The petitioner had made application dated 19.07.2018,
addressed to the Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District
Sirmour. H.P., seeking parole on medical ground. He had stated in
his application that his wife got operated in the month of April/May,
2018 for tumor and 13.5 kg. tumor was removed, due to which her
health got deteriorated and doctor had advised her to take complete
bed rest and not to take even small walk.
After acknowledging the said application, the Jail
Superintendent, addressed a communication to the District
Collector, Mumbai on 27.07.2018, under the provisions of Himachal
Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, (for
short 'the Act') seeking his opinion for consideration of the case of
the petitioner for grant of parole. The Additional Police
Commissioner, Mumbai-1, District Mumbai, Maharashtra, responded
to the aforesaid letter vide his letter dated 15.09.2018, stating
therein that they cannot recommend the case of the petitioner for
grant of parole as they cannot ensure whether he will surrender in
.
the jail after availing the parole. Thereafter, communications dated
7.12.2018, 18.01.2019 and 18.03.2020 were sent to the Authorities
concerned, but despite all these efforts made by the Jail Authorities,
no opinion for consideration of the case of the petitioner for grant of
parole was received.
Under the provisions of the aforesaid Act, when an
application is made for grant of parole, it has to be communicated to
the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate concerned within 24
hours, seeking his opinion regarding grant of parole.
Today, the learned Additional Advocate General has
produced communication/instructions dated 20.02.2017 regarding
grant of parole, which are taken on record. As per the aforesaid
instructions, the temporary release of convicted prisoners is to be
considered after undergoing one year actual imprisonment by the
prisoner.
In the present case, the petitioner was convicted and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the aforesaid offences by
the learned Special Judge-II, Kullu District at Kullu, H.P., vide
judgment/order dated 26.07.2017 and on completion of one year of
undergoing the sentence, a letter was addressed to the District
Magistrate, Mumbai, but till date, no communication/reply has been
received by the Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan.
This Court, on 23.01.2020, issued notice to the
respondent/ Police Commissioner, Mumbai. The said notice was
received back with the report of the Bailiff concerned that "I, the
undersigned, served a copy of notice on Miss Pigaler, i.e. Revising
Clerk of respondent No. 6 at C.P. Office, Ist Floor, Mumbai-1, Fort on
05.01.2021 at 2.00 p.m. and obtained her acknowledgment". Due
.
to the non-service of the aforesaid respondent, the parole application
filed by the petitioner could not be processed.
Learned Additional Advocate General submits that until
and unless, the consent is obtained from the Authority concerned for
grant of parole to the petitioner, it is impermissible to release him on
parole.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have
perused the entire file carefully.
Under the relevant provisions of the Act, the parole can
be granted to a prisoner for limited purposes. The petitioner has
sought parole on the ground that his wife had undergone a surgery of
tumor in the month of April/May, 2018 and 13.5 kg. tumor was
removed, due to which her health got deteriorated and doctor had
advised her to take complete bed rest. The Jail Superintendent
addressed several letters to the Police Commissioner, Mumbai, but
in vain.
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
we direct respondent No. 4/ Superintendent of Jail, Model Central
Jail, Nahan to serve respondent No. 5/ District Magistrate, Mumbai
through the Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra for
09.03.2021,
Learned Additional Advocate General is directed to
communicate this order to the Authorities concerned over telephone
or by any other electronic mode.
List on 09.03.2021, on which date, respondent No. 5
shall put in appearance in person or through an authorized
.
representative.
An authenticated copy of this order be supplied to the
learned Counsel for the parties.
(L. Narayana Swamy)
Chief Justice.
February 24, 2021 (Ravi Malimath)
(hemlata)
r Judge.
.
