Sukhjinder Singh Alias Sukhi vs State Of Punjab And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3850 P&H

                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050635




CRWP-1874-2023                                 1




                                               2023:PHHC:050635

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH
227
                                                    CRWP-1874-2023 (O&M)
                                                   Date of decision: 12.04.2023


SUKHJINDER SINGH ALIAS SUKHI
                                                                      ....Petitioner

                                 Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
                                                                   ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY


Present :    Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

       Mr. H.S. Sullar, Sr. DAG Punjab.
                             *****

AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.

Present petition has been filed under Section 226/227 of the

Constitution of India with a prayer seeking direction to the respondents to

grant eight weeks parole to the petitioner to meet his family members under

Section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (temporary release)

Act, 1962.

Learned counsel contends that the ground on which the parole

has been rejected vide impugned order dated 27.01.2023 is that the

petitioner may threaten the prosecution witnesses in case FIR No.260 dated

27.09.2013 registered against him under Section 21/61/85 of NDPS Act at

Police Station Chheharta, Amritsar. In this regard, the submission advanced

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050635

is that the petitioner already stands acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case

vide judgment dated 18.11.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge

Amritsar. Further, that the petitioner has been granted parole thrice over by

this Court, one of such orders is dated 27.07.2022, Annexure P-1, however,

he never misused the said concession.

Learned State counsel opposes that the petitioner is a habitual

offender. However, he is unable to controvert the fact of the petitioner

having been acquitted in the FIR made basis of rejection of the request of

the petitioner and that he never misused the parole granted to him.

Heard.

It would be worthwhile to refer to the judgment of Division

Bench of this Court in Jugraj Singh @ Bhola vs. State of Punjab,

2010(25) RCR (Crl.) 138, has held thus:

"It is also conceded position that the petitioner can be

temporarily released on parole for four weeks under Clause (d) of sub-

section (1) of Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary

Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to enable him to

meet his family members. In our opinion, the release of a convict on parole

is a wing of reformative process. Section 3 of the Act has been enacted as a

reformative measure with an object to enable the prisoner to have family

association or to perform certain family obligations and rituals. Until and

unless sufficient material is available with the authorities giving solid

reasons for declining the temporary release of a convict on parole, this

benefit should not be declined to him. In the instant case, no such strong

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050635

material or basis has been relied upon by the respondents while rejecting the

prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole for four weeks to meet

his family members."

Indubitably, the petitioner has been convicted by the trial Court

for the offences under Sections 307, 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act,

and convicted for a period of 7 years, against which, the appeal filed before

this Court is pending adjudication.

The apprehensions of the respondents are not substantiated by

any material on record, particularly regarding that there are chances of

disturbing the State security or maintenance of public order as mentioned in

the reply filed to the present petition. Further still, in so far as the ground of

rejection of the prayer of the petitioner, being the FIR, in which he might

threaten witnesses, is concerned, admittedly, he stands acquitted therefrom.

There is nothing that has been brought forth on behalf of the State that the

petitioner ever misused the parole that was granted to him previous three

occasions. Thus, the aforesaid cannot be made the grounds to reject the

prayer made by the petitioner for grant of parole to meet his family

members.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Babu Singh vs. State of UP,

1978 (1) SCC 579 has also observed that "unremitting insulation in the

harsh and hardened company of prisoners leads to many unmention-able

vices that humanizing interludes of parole are part of the compassionate

constitutionalism of our system".

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050635

Consequently, the petition is allowed to the extent that subject

to the petitioner maintaining good conduct, he is ordered to be released on

parole for a period of six weeks from the date of his release, upon his

furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

                                                   (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
                                                        JUDGE
April 12, 2023
M.Kamra

      Whether speaking/reasoned              : Yes /No
      Whether reportable                     : Yes /No




                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050635

                                    4 of 4