Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhpal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 26 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057542
CRWP-2550-2024 --1--
2024:PHHC:057542
223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRWP-2550-2024
Decided on:-26.04.2024
Sukhpal Singh ....Petitioner..
vs.
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Ms. Satinder Kaur, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.
*****
HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)
1. By way of present petition filed under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India prayer is for setting aside the impugned order dated
08.02.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate,
Bathinda, whereby, a prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of
regular parole stood declined with the following reasons:-
"According to the report of Senior
Superintendent of Police, Bathinda, FIR No.7 dated 24.01.2016 U/S
302, 323, 148, 149 (Police Sadar Maur) District Bathinda. He is
serving a 20 year sentence at the Central Jail, Bathinda. And another
case is registered in Police Station Rama against the prisoner FIR
No.68 dated 10.03.2018 under Section 324/341/323/34 IPC.
According to this it is clear the prisoner may crime again and again.
On to this report they prescribed he is quarrelsome type of man who
has come out of jail and breach the peace and disturbing the peace of
the area. Therefore, according to the above facts, it is not in the
public interest to grant parole to prisoner Sukhpal Singh, therefore,
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057542
CRWP-2550-2024 --2--
prisoner number 2737 Sukhpal Singh son of Naib Singh, resident of
Balluana (Sadar Bathinda Police Station), District Bathinda, is
rejected for 08 weeks parole."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having been
implicated in FIR No.7 dated 24.01.2016, under Sections 302, 324, 323, 34
IPC, Police Station Sadar Maur, District Bathinda, the petitioner was
convicted and sentenced vide judgment of conviction dated 11.09.2018 and
order of sentence dated 12.09.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Bathinda to the following effect:-
Sr. Name of the accused Offence Punishment In default
No. awarded/fine
Nazam Singh, Suba years with months
Singh, Hardev Kaur fine of
and Sukhpal Singh Rs.2000/-
each
with fine of months
Rs.20,000/-
3. Nazam Singh, Suba 302 read with RI for life, RI for 06
Singh, Hardev Kaur Section 149 with fine of months
and Sukhpal Singh IPC Rs.20,000/-
Nazam Singh, Suba with 149 IPC months with days
Singh, Hardev Kaur fine of
and Sukhpal Singh Rs.1000/-
each
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the appeal against
the judgment/order dated 11/12.09.2018 filed before this Court came to be
declined vide judgment dated 11.04.2023 passed in CRA-D-951-DB-2018.
She further submits that in January, 2024, petitioner applied for grant of
regular parole before the Jail Authorities, which came to be declined vide
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057542
CRWP-2550-2024 --3--
impugned order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the District Magistrate,
Bathinda while relying upon report dated 10.01.2024 forwarded by the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda, stating therein that the petitioner
was a quarrelsome person and may indulge himself in similar type of crime
and there was threat to the State security/maintenance of public order, in
case he was released on parole.
3. Impugning the aforesaid order passed by the District Magistrate,
Bathinda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforementioned
order has been passed primarily for two reasons. Firstly, while relying upon
the report submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda and
secondly, for the reason that the petitioner was involved in another FIR
No.68 dated 10.03.2018, under Sections 324, 341, 323, 34 IPC. She further
submits that mere fact that petitioner was involved in two cases, it could not
have been recorded that the petitioner happens to be a quarrelsome person,
especially when he already stood acquitted in FIR No.68 dated 10.03.2018,
under Sections 324, 341, 323, 34 IPC, thus, impugned order is liable to be
set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the
prayer made on behalf of the petitioner while referring to the report
submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda, wherein, it has
been specifically stated that the release of the petitioner on parole was going
to be a threat to State Security/maintenance of public order and thus,
impugned order warrants no interference.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
paper book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057542
CRWP-2550-2024 --4--
petitioner.
6. A perusal of impugned order shows that the same has been passed
merely on the basis of report submitted by the SSP Bathinda, which records
that the release of petitioner was going to be a threat to State
Security/maintenance of public order, whereas, on the contrary, a perusal of
report shows that for the purpose of recording the aforesaid satisfaction, the
SSP, Bathinda has not relied upon any substantial material in support, which
thus can just be said to be an apprehension. Moreover, the District
Magistrate while passing the impugned order relied upon involvement of
petitioner in two cases, whereas, he already stood acquitted in FIR No.68
dated 10.03.2018, vide judgment dated 06.08.2022 passed by the Court of
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talwandi Sabo and thus, the District
Magistrate went into an error while declining the prayer made on behalf of
the petitioner. Even Section 5-A of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners
(Temporary Release) Act, 1962, is not applicable to the present case as the
petitioner is not a hardcore prisoner.
7. Moreover, meeting of prisoners to their families has been held to
be very essential for their emotional health and thus, falls within the term
"sufficient cause" being part of their human rights. Reference to this can be
made to paras 15 to 17 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
"Asfaq vs. State of Rajasthan", 2017 (15) SCC 55, which are reproduced
hereunder:-
"15) The provisions of parole and furlough, thus, provide for
a humanistic approach towards those lodged in jails. Main
purpose of such provisions is to afford to them an opportunity to
solve their personal and family problems and to enable them to
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057542
CRWP-2550-2024 --5--
maintain their links with society. Even citizens of this country
have a vested interest in preparing offenders for successful re-
entry into society. Those who leave prison without strong
networks of support, without employment prospects, without a
fundamental knowledge of the communities to which they will
return, and without resources, stand a significantly higher chance
of failure. When offenders revert to criminal activity upon release,
they frequently do so because they lack hope of merging into
society as accepted citizens. Furloughs or parole can help
prepare offenders for success.
16) Having noted the aforesaid public purpose in granting
parole or furlough, ingrained in the reformation theory of
sentencing, other competing public interest has also to be kept in
mind while deciding as to whether in a particular case parole or
furlough is to be granted or not. This public interest also demands
that those who are habitual offenders and may have the tendency
to commit the crime again after their release on parole or have
the tendency to become threat to the law and order of the society,
should not be released on parole. This aspect takes care of other
objectives of sentencing, namely, deterrence and prevention. This
side of the coin is the experience that great number of crimes are
committed by the offenders who have been put back in the street
after conviction. Therefore, while deciding as to whether a
particular prisoner deserves to be released on parole or not, the
aforesaid aspects have also to be kept in mind. To put it tersely,
the authorities are supposed to address the question as to whether
the convict is such a person who has the tendency to commit such
a crime or he is showing tendency to reform himself to become a
good citizen.
17) Thus, not all people in prison are appropriate for grant
of furlough or parole. Obviously, society must isolate those who
show patterns of preying upon victims. Yet administrators ought
to encourage those offenders who demonstrate a commitment to
reconcile with society and whose behaviour shows that aspire to
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057542
CRWP-2550-2024 --6--
live as law-abiding citizens. Thus, parole program should be used
as a tool to shape such adjustments."
8. Keeping in view the above, I am of the considered opinion that the
order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District
Magistrate, Bathinda, is not legally sustainable and is accordingly set aside.
9. Consequently, the petition is allowed and petitioner-Sukhpal
Singh is granted the parole for a period of 6 weeks subject to the condition
that he would report to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police
Station once in a every week on Monday.
10. Pending application(s), if any also stand(s) disposed of.
26.04.2024 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sonika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/ No
6 of 6
