Rakesh Chehal vs State Of Haryana And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3987 P&H

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3987 P&H
Judgement Date : 13 April, 2023

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rakesh Chehal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 April, 2023

                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:051522-DB




CRWP No.12116 of 2022(O&M)                                            2023:PHHC:051522-DB

                                              -1-

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH

                               Criminal Writ Petition No. 12116 of 2022(O&M)
                                                     Date of Decision: April 13 , 2023.



Rakesh Chehal                                       ...... PETITIONER (s)
             Versus
State of Haryana and others                         ...... RESPONDENT (s)


CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL
        HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE RITU TAGORE

Present:     Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl.AG, Haryana.
                                 *****
             1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
                the judgment?
             2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
             3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
                                 *****

LISA GILL, J.

Prayer in this petition is for quashing of order dated 22.09.2022

passed by respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal,

whereby his request for grant of parole for ten weeks has been rejected.

Petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life

imprisonment in FIR No.56 dated 21.02.2014 under Sections 302/120B IPC and

Section 25 of the Arms Act. Appeal against the said conviction and sentence is

pending before this High Court. Petitioner has applied for ten weeks parole to

meet his family members and look after household affairs. Same has been

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:051522-DB

CRWP No.12116 of 2022(O&M) 2023:PHHC:051522-DB

rejected by respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 22.09.2022. Aggrieved

therefrom, present petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order

dated 22.09.2022 is clearly unsustainable as it has been passed on consideration

alien to the specific provisions of law. Petitioner, it is submitted, had been

afforded the concession of furlough vide order dated 29.07.2022 in CRWP

No.1949 of 2022, Annexure P5 and he never misused the concession afforded to

him. It is further submitted that case of the petitioner for grant of parole was

duly recommended by the Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal, however, the

same has been rejected by the authorities in an arbitrary manner whereas his case

for parole is fully covered under the applicable provisions.

Learned counsel for the State, however, opposed the prayer of the

petitioner on the ground he is involved in a number of other criminal cases of

similar nature and is likely to commit some offence again, if released on parole.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Perusal of order dated 22.09.2022 (Annexure P1) reveals that

petitioner's application for parole has been rejected on the ground that petitioner

may abscond or commit other offence, after his release on parole. It is relevant

to refer to Section 6 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary

Release) Act, 1988 (for short, '1988 Act'), which reads as under:-

"6. Prisoners not entitled to be released in certain cases. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 3 and 4, no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act if, on the report of the District Magistrate, the State Government or an officer authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:051522-DB

CRWP No.12116 of 2022(O&M) 2023:PHHC:051522-DB

State or the maintenance of public order or cause reasonable apprehension of breach of peace.

(2) The District Magistrate, the State Government or the officer authorized to release the prisoner as provided in sections 3 and 4 of the Act shall take report from the Police within a specified time frame.

(3) In case of non-recommendation for release by the Police, the release

granting authority shall pass a speaking order, if he disagrees with the

report submitted to him."

It has been held in a plethora of cases that temporary release of a

prisoner on parole or furlough can be denied only if the release is likely to

endanger security of State or maintenance of public order. For arriving at such

satisfaction that danger to security of State or maintenance of public order is

indeed present, there has to be sufficient material before the District Magistrate

for consideration. In the present case, there are general allegations that petitioner

may abscond or involve in other criminal case, if released on parole. However,

no material has been adverted to in the reply or by learned State counsel during

the course of arguments justifying such apprehension. Insofar as other cases

against the petitioner are concerned, it is not denied that in almost all of them,

petitioner has either been acquitted or has undergone the sentence. Furthermore,

no provision of 1988 Act has been cited which can be a bar/impediment for