Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarsem Singh Alias Joginder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 8 February, 2023
CRWP-8081-2022 -1-
257
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-8081-2022
Decided on : 08.02.2023
Tarsem Singh @ Joginder Singh ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present : Ms. Satinder Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral)
Petitioner is seeking issuance of directions to respondents
No.2 to 5 to grant him six weeks parole as some renovations/repairs
require to be carried out in his house. Besides this, he also wishes to
spend some time with his family as he has never been released on parole
after his conviction on 17.07.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was convicted on 17.07.2018 by learned Sessions Judge, Moga in Fir
No.44 dated 19.04.2013 under Sections 22/61/85 NDPS Act and Sections
420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC for a period of 12 years along with fine of
Rs.1,25,000/-. It has been submitted that the petitioner is undergoing the
aforesaid sentence since the date of conviction and has now been in
custody for a period of 06 years, 04 and 29 days. Learned counsel further
1 of 5
submits that ever since his conviction, the petitioner has never availed
parole and has been maintaining good conduct inside the prison. It has
further been submitted that out of the 04 other criminal cases registered
against the petitioner, he stands acquitted in three cases and in the fourth
case, he had been sentenced to the period already undergone. It has been
vehemently urged by the learned counsel that the petitioner wants to meet
his family members and also carry out renovations of his house. Learned
counsel submits that there is no apprehension of the petitioner indulging
in any criminal activity, which fact is supported by the resolution passed
by the Gram Panchayat on 12.06.2022 wherein No Objection has been
given for the release of the petitioner on parole. In support of her
submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of this
Court in Varun @ Gullu vs. State of Haryana and others in CRM-M-
34013 of 2009 (decided on 09.04.2010) and Mahammad Shehbaz vs.
State of Punjab and others in CRWP No.3196 of 2022 (decided on
05.07.2022).
Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer
made by the counsel opposite. He submits that in case the petitioner is
released on parole, there is every likelihood that he could indulge in
similar criminal activities for which he has been convicted and commit
breach of peace, that is why his parole has been rejected by the District
Magistrate. Learned State counsel has, however, not been able to
controvert the fact that the petitioner stands acquitted in three criminal
cases and has served his sentence in the fourth case.
2 of 5
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
material available on record.
The petitioner has prayed for his release on parole for a
period of six weeks to meet his family and to carry out necessary repairs
in his house, which as per him are urgently required.
Division Bench of this Court in Jugraj Singh @ Bhola vs.
State of Punjab, 2010(25) RCR (Crl.) 138 has held as under:
"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 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."
Hon'ble 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
3 of 5
constitutionalism of our system".
In the present case, the petitioner has been in custody for a
period of six years and 5 months approximately, and all these years, he
has not been released on parole even once. It has not been disputed by
the learned State counsel that the petitioner has maintained good conduct
inside the prison and has been acquitted in the three out of the four cases,
which were pending against him. Further a panchayat nama (Annexure
P-1) also reveals that there is no apprehension of any threat to the peace
of the village or any apprehension of the petitioner being involved in any
illegal activities during the parole period.
In the circumstances, this Court does not deem it appropriate
to deprive the petitioner of company of his family members and the
opportunity to carry out repairs of his house. It needs to be reiterated that
a prisoner does not stop being a human merely because he has been
convicted for an offence and hence, cannot be deprived of the company
of his loved ones.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is
ordered to be released on parole for a period of six weeks from the date of
release on his furnishing requisite personal and surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the District Magistrate concerned, and the said District
Magistrate is directed to impose such conditions as may be considered
necessary to secure the presence of the petitioner in jail after the parole
period is over and to ensure that the temporary release is not misused by
securing the bond of mandatory good conduct with a clear stipulation that
4 of 5
in case the petitioner commits any offence during his period of temporary
release, his release warrants would be cancelled as provided in Rule 4 of
Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners' (Temporary Release) Rules, 1963.
08.02.2023 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
sonia JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
