Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 21 November, 2022
CRWP-9790-2022 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRWP-9790-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision:- 21.11.2022
Rajinder Singh .... Petitioner
VS.
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Chandan Singh Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Ishma Randhawa, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-Rajinder
Singh under Artile 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order
dated 21.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2, Deputy
Commissioner/District Magistrate, Jalandhar, whereby the request of the
petitioner for grant of parole had been rejected.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the
ground that he was held guilty and convicted by the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala vide judgment of conviction and
order dated 09.12.2021, in case bearing FIR No.67, dated 03.06.2019
registered under Sections 376, 342 and 506 of IPC read with Section 4 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012. He had been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years. An appeal has
been filed by him against the said judgment, which is pending before this
1 of 3
Court.
The petitioner approached respondent No.2 to release him on
parole for eight weeks to meet his family members, which was duly
recommended by respondent No.4 and his case was sent to Additional
District Magistrate, Jalandhar, which was further endorsed to respondent
No.3. Respondent No.2 after receiving the report from concerned police
Station, did not recommend the parole case of the petitioner and rejected the
same vide the impugned order dated 21.09.2022. Feeling aggrieved, he has
filed the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner
was in jail from the last about 3 years, 4 months. He had never availed the
benefit of parole to meet his family members. He was entitled for parole
period of 84 days in a calendar year. There was no apprehension of his
absconding or disturbing law and order. Hence, it was urged that the
petitioner be released on parole for a period of four weeks.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the
prayer made by petitioner by way of reply filed in the Court, which is taken
on record. It is submitted that the petitioner has undergone 3 years, 5
months and 13 days of actual sentence as on 18.11.2022. The parole case of
the petitioner was duly initiated and was rejected by the District Magistrate,
Jalandhar on the basis of verification report of Senior Superintendent of
Police, Jalandhar. There were chances of petitioner's disturbing the State
security and maintenance of public order if extended benefit of parole.
Hence, it was urged that the petition did not deserve to be allowed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
As per the reply submitted by the State, the petitioner has
2 of 3
undergone 3 years, 5 months and 13 days of actual sentence. He is not
alleged to be involved in any other case. The only reason given by
respondent No.2 for rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner is that his
release might disturb the law and order and may lead to danger to the State
security and further that he might abscond. This apprehension, however, is
not substantiated by any material and hence cannot be made a ground to
reject the prayer made by the petitioner. It is relevant to mention that
Section 3(1)(aa) of the Punjab Good Conduct Imprisoners' (Temporary
Release) Act, 1962, permits temporary release of prisoner on parole on the
grounds as mentioned therein. The petitioner wants to meet his family
members. He has never been released on parole earlier.
Taking all these circumstances into consideration, the petition
is hereby allowed. Impugned order dated 21.09.2022 is set aside. The
petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a period of four weeks
subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
District Magistrate, Jalandhar.
District Magistrate, Jalandhar, may impose such conditions as
may be necessary to secure the presence of the petitioner in jail after the
parole is over and to ensure that the temporary release is not misused.
(RITU BAHRI) (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
21.11.2022
pooja saini
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
