Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harvinder Singh Alias Goggi vs State Of Punjab on 4 July, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083860-DB
CRWP-3152-2023 -1-
2023:PHHC:083860-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
221 CRWP-3152-2023
Date of Decision : July 04, 2023
HARVINDER SINGH ALIAS GOGGI
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr. Arjunveer Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
KULDEEP TIWARI. J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the grant of parole
for 8 weeks under Section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners
Temporary Release Act, 1962.
The petitioner has been convicted by the learned trial Court
vide order dated 15.1.2021 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-
and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year under Sections 18 and 21 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner
has preferred a statutory Criminal Appeal No. CRA-D-212-DB-2021
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.1.2021
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083860-DB
2023:PHHC:083860-DB
which is pending for adjudication. The petitioner had applied for
temporary parole for a period of 8 weeks. However, the Deputy
Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Ludhiana vide its order dated
23.2.2023 has declined the parole. The petitioner has now challenged the
aforesaid order declining his prayer for 8 weeks' parole.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order has been passed in most perfunctory manner. No reason
whatsoever has been assigned to decline the parole.
Upon notice, the learned State counsel has filed short reply
by way of affidavit of Shivraj Singh Nangarh, PPS, Superintendent,
Central Jail, Ludhiana. As per the reply filed by the State, the petitioner
is involved in 6 more cases, out of which, he has been acquitted in 1 case
and 5 cases are pending against him. The details of such cases are given
hereinunder:-
Sr. No. FIR No./Date Under Section Police Remarks
Station
1 131/2016 22/29/61/85 of NDPS Haibowal, The petitioner
is confined on
Act Ludhiana production
warrant in this
case.
2 217/2017 25 of Arms Act Sadar Ludhiana The petitioner
is on bail in this
case.
3 118/2016 323/325/506/34 IPC Haibowal, The petitioner
is on bail in this
Ludhiana case.
4 205/2019 52-A(1) of Prisons Act Division No.7, The petitioner
is on bail in this
Ludhiana. case.
5 29/2021 18A/61/85 of NDPS Division No.7, The petitioner
is on bail in this
Act Ludhiana case.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083860-DB
2023:PHHC:083860-DB
The learned State counsel while opposing the grant of parole
submits that in case the petitioner is granted parole, he might get
involved in drug smuggling and might abscond from justice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the
judgment dated 7.7.2018 passed by the learned trial Court in FIR No. 41
dated 10.5.2015 under Sections 15/61/85 of NDPS Act, Police Station
Haibowal, Ludhiana whereby the petitioner has been acquitted of the
charges framed against him. He has also placed on record the orders
showing that the petitioner is on bail in all other pending cases.
We have perused the entire record.
A reading of the declining order (Annexure P-1) reveals, that
the only reason for declining the parole is that there is an apprehension of
the petitioner misusing the concession of parole and absconding from
justice. Pendency of other cases and apprehending indulgence of the
petitioner in trade of intoxicants, if released on parole, are also one of the
reasons for declining parole. However, the above apprehension is not
founded upon any credible and tangible evidence. Therefore, since in the
wake of the above, the declining order (supra) is obviously made with a
complete lack of application of mind, and/or is surmisely drawn,
therefore, the same is required to be rejected.
Therefore, the petition is allowed and the impugned order
dated 23.2.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District
Magistrate, Ludhiana is set-aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released
on parole for eight weeks w.e.f. 10.7.2023 to 3.9.2023, but subject to his
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083860-DB
2023:PHHC:083860-DB
furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned
trial Court/Duty Magistrate with an undertaking that immediately on
expiry of the afore period, he shall re-step into the prison concerned.
If the above condition is breached and the petitioner does not
re-step into the prison concerned, immediately on the expiry of eight
weeks, thereupon, liberty is reserved to the jurisdictional SHO concerned,
to forthwith arrest the petitioner and to thereafter produce the petitioner
before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, for the latter making an
order for the petitioner becoming committed to the jail concerned.
(RITU BAHRI) (KULDEEP TIWARI)
JUDGE JUDGE
July 04, 2023
ajay-1
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083860-DB
4 of 4
