Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamal Hassan vs State Of Ut, Chandigarh And Ors on 10 January, 2023
CRWP-10844-2022 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRWP-10844-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision:- 10.01.2023
Kamal Hassan
.... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of U.T., Chandigarh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. H.S. Jaswal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Bakshi, Addl. P.P., U.T., Chandigarh.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-Kamal
Hassan under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order
dated 31.10.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by Inspector General of Prisons,
U.T., Chandigarh, 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, Chandigarh vide judgment of conviction and
order dated 14.08.2019, in case bearing FIR No.298, dated 13.12.2016
registered under Sections 376-D of IPC registered at Police Station
1 of 3
Industrial Area, Chandigarh. He had been sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment. Appeal bearing No.CRA-D-219 of 2020 has been filed by
him against the said judgment, which is pending before this Court.
The petitioner approached office of Inspector General of
Prisons, U.T., Chandigarh to release him on parole for 28 days to meet his
family members, which was duly recommended by respondent No.2,
Superintendent, Model Jail, Chandigarh. After receiving the report from the
District Magistrate, Ayodya, Inspector General of Prisons, U.T.,
Chandigarh, (respondent No.1) rejected the parole vide the impugned order
dated 31.10.2022. Feeling aggrieved, he has filed the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner
was in jail from the last about 4 years, 9 months and 28 days. 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 4 years, 9
months and 28 days of actual sentence as on 10.01.2023. The parole case of
the petitioner was duly initiated and was rejected by Inspector General of
Prisons, U.T., Chandigarh on the basis of verification report of District
Magistrate, Ayodya. 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.
The only reason given by Inspector General of Prisons, U.T.,
2 of 3
Chandigarh 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 31.10.2022 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
conerned District Magistrate.
Concerned District Magistrate, 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
10.01.2023
pooja saini
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
