Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 August, 2023
2023:PHHC:103221-DB
211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-7380-2023
Date of Decision: August 09, 2023
Harjit Singh
......Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR.
***
Present: Mr. SPS Tinna, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Iqbal Singh Mann, DAG Punjab
Raj Mohan Singh, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has preferred this petition for the issuance of a
writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 16.09.2020
passed by respondent No. 4. The petitioner also seeks issuance of writ in
the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the petitioner
on parole under Section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoner's
(Temporary Release) Act, 1962 as amended from time to time.
The case of the petitioner was declined vide the impugned
order on the ground that on release of the petitioner, he may again indulge
in smuggling of Narcotics. The order has been passed on the feedback
given by respondent No. 5 that in case the petitioner is allowed parole for
the first time to meet his family members, then there is every possibility of
the petitioner having come in contact with some anti-social element and
may indulge in smuggling of narcotics during his release on parole. The
ground on which the parole has been rejected is purely an apprehension
REENA
of the competent authority without any feedback of any type. Mere
2023.08.10 17:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/ judgment
Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:103221-DB
apprehension is no ground to discard the grant of parole for which the
petitioner is otherwise entitled to.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Gurwinder
Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (CRWP No. 1621 of 2014) and
Ram Chander vs. State of Punjab and others, 2017(3) RCR(Criminal)
340 to support his contention.
The reply filed on behalf of the State does not advance any
such ground on which prayer of the petitioner can be dismissed.
In view of the aforesaid factual position, the petition is allowed.
Order dated 16.09.2020 passed by respondent No. 4 is set aside.
Respondent No. 4 is directed to do the needful in the context of releasing of
the petitioner on parole. The petitioner is directed to be released on regular
parole for a period of four weeks from the date of his release subject to his
furnishing adequate surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. He is also directed to surrender
before the jail authorities on expiry of period of four weeks.
(RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
August 09, 2023
reena
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
REENA
2023.08.10 17:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/ judgment
Chandigarh
