Amrender Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2884 P&H

   CRWP-3335-2021                                                                   1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                 CRWP-3335-2021
                                        Date of Decision:05.10.2021

Amrender Singh

                                                                          ...Petitioner
                                      Versus
State of Haryana and others
                                                                       ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANT PARKASH

Present:    Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Vivek Saini, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

            [The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the
            proceedings are being conducted in virtual court.]



SANT PARKASH, J.

Instant petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 05.03.2021(P-1)

passed by respondent No.3-Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal,

whereby case of the petitioner seeking parole has been rejected.

The petitioner was convicted and sentenced in FIR No.485

dated 02.11.2017, under Sections 15-61-85 of the NDPS Act, registered at

Police Station, City Kaithal and accordingly, he has been convicted and

sentenced to undergo 14 years imprisonment. Against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence, petitioner filed an appeal before this

Court, which is still pending admitted for final adjudication.

It is argued that the petitioner applied for parole for the purpose

of repair of his house as per the provisions of Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana

1 of 4

Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short 'the

Act'), but respondent No.3 has wrongly rejected the parole of the petitioner

with considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

On the other hand, learned State counsel strongly opposes the

submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and prays for

dismissal of instant petition.

We have given our thoughtful considerations to the matter. As

already noticed, the petitioner is undergoing 14 years imprisonment for

having committed offences punishable under Sections 15-61-85 of the

NDPS Act. During his incarceration in jail, he has sought temporary release

in terms of Section 3(1) (d) of the Act, which reads as under: -

"3. Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds:- (1) The State Government may, in consultation with the District Magistrate and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified in sub-Section (2) any prisoner if the State government is satisfied that: -

(a) to (c) xxxxxx

(d) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause."

In terms of Section 3(2)(b) of the Act where the prisoner is to

be released on the ground specified in clause (b) or clause (d) of sub-section

(1) the period for which a prisoner may be released shall be determined by

the State Government so as not to exceed four weeks. Section 6 of the Act

provides that "consultation with District Magistrate is not necessary where

prisoners are not to be released". Sub-section (ii) of Section 6 reads as

follows:-

"6 (ii). No prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act, if on the report of the District Magistrate, where consultation with him is necessary, the State Government or an

2 of 4

officer authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that, that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order."

In view of the aforesaid provisions of law, it is crystal clear that

while considering the request of the petitioner for grant of parole,

discretion has been bestowed upon the concerned Officer/State

Government. It clearly indicates that the release on parole of a convict

cannot be claimed as a matter of right as the legislature has used the word

'may' not 'shall'.

From the perusal of the case file, it would be revealed that the

petitioner is undergoing 14 years imprisonment for having committed

offences punishable under Sections 15-61-85 of the NDPS Act. The case of

the petitioner has been rejected on the basis of reports submitted by the

District Magistrate, Patiala and Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala,

apprehending breach of peach and maintenance of public order. order. The

ground taken in the petition i.e. to repair of house does not appeal to logic

at all and cannot be said to be justifiable ground for granting the concession

of parole to the accused, when other family members including father (50

years), mother (45 years) and wife (24 years) are available, as per reply

submitted by the respondent-State. The petitioner committed a heinous

crime and if such type of convict is enlarged on parole, there is every

possibility that he can misuse the concession of parole.

Otherwise also, it is the subjective satisfaction of the authority

concerned to evaluate the circumstances seeking parole. Unless and until

some arbitrariness or malafide is apparent in the order of the said authority,

only then, this Court should intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India.

3 of 4

In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere in

the matter as the same has been considered after taking into consideration

all the facts collected for considering the request of the petitioner for

releasing him on parole. Accordingly, the present criminal writ petition is

dismissed.

(JASWANT SINGH)                                     (SANT PARKASH)
    JUDGE                                               JUDGE

05.10.2021
mks                Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES / NO
                   Whether Reportable:        YES / NO




                                     4 of 4