Punjab-Haryana High Court
Modhi Ram vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084991
CRWP-1633-2024 -1-
2024:PHHC:084991
238 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-1633-2024
Date of Decision: 03.07.2024
MODHI RAM
.....APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS .....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Ms. Satinder Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. J. S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab
****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J
1. The petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India has invoked the writ jurisdiction of mandamus, thereby making prayer
for directing Respondent no.3 to release the petitioner on parole for 8 weeks
to meet his family members, whereby the parole case of the petitioner has
been rejected by the District Magistrate Rajsamand (Rajasthan) vide letter
dated 11.01.2024 (Annexure P-1) and on this basis, further the parole case
has been rejected by the Additional Director General of Police (Prisons),
Punjab Chandigarh vide order dated 02.05.2024(Annexure R-3).
2. It is averred in the petition that in pursuance of judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 20.07.2023, the petitioner is
undergoing 10 years of imprisonment in case bearing FIR No.52 dated
25.07.2012 under Section 18/61/85 of NDPS Act, PS. Sangat, District
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084991
Bathinda. Against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the
petitioner had filed CRA-S-2131-2023, which is still pending.
3. Further, it is averred that the petitioner approached respondent
No.3-District Magistrate, Rajsamand, Rajasthan for grant of parole to meet
his family members which was recommended to the concerned SSP which
further referred the case to the concerned SHO, who after getting the enquiry
done did not recommend to grant parole to the petitioner and on the basis of
this enquiry report, Addl. District Magistrate rejected the parole vide order
dated 11.01.2024(Annexure P-1). Therefore, the petitioner is seeking
indulgence of this Court for grant of parole.
4. Learned State Counsel has filed reply on behalf of respondents
No.1 and 2 and custody certificate of the petitioner which is taken on record.
In the reply it is stated that the petitioner was earlier released on emergency
parole for 15 days from 10.11.2023 to 26.11.2023 for performing last rituals
on the death of his mother, thereafter he got surrendered timely. Further, the
petitioner again applied for parole which was was processed and forwarded
to the District Magistrate Rajsamand (Rajasthan) vide letter dated
06.12.2023 which was recommended to SSP, Rajsamand for consideration
wherein an enquiry was conducted by SHO stating that earlier the petitioner
had been declared as proclaimed offender by this Hon'ble court and fearing
the same might be repeated again thereby SHO did not recommend
petitioner's parole.
5. On the basis of this report, Additional Director General of
Police(Prisons), Punjab Chandigarh vide order dated 06.05.2024 rejected the
parole of the petitioner(Annexure R-3).
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084991
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
State counsel and perused the record. The petitioner had sought grant of
parole to meet his family members. However, vide letter dated 06.12.2023
(Annexure R-3), the case of the petitioner for grant of parole was considered
and Senior Superintendent of Police had reported that since earlier the
petitioner has been declared absconded and, as such, no recommendation
was made for release of the petitioner on parole. The Punjab Good Conduct
Prisoner's (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, was enacted for temporary
release of the prisoners, on account of their conduct, but on certain
conditions. It is though a privilege granted by the State to the prisoners, but
however, it cannot be clipped for the vague reasons. The name of the Act
itself suggests that in order to earn temporary release, the prisoner has to
maintain good conduct, during his stay in the prison and furthermore, he has
to behave properly during the period of parole and also not disturb the social
peace.
7. Even though, in the impugned order it is stated that the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Rajsmand had reported that the petitioner once had
absconded which in future might be repeated by him again. Therefore, no
recommendation has been made for their release, but however, nothing as
such has been specified about the manner, in which the release of the
petitioner on parole shall cause inconvenience to the State Authorities. The
reason, so assigned in the impugned order is hence quite vague.
8. Perusal of the Custody Certificate annexed with the reply
reveals that the petitioner has undergone total sentence of 2 years 11 months
and 22 days (including remission) and after conviction he has undergone 8
months and 22 days in custody. There is nothing, as such, mentioned in the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084991
custody certificate about the petitioner to have not maintained good conduct
while his detention in jail, during the pendency of the trial.
9. In the given circumstances, the present petition, as such, is
hereby allowed and the petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on parole
for a period of 8 weeks, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, within
a period of 7 days from the date of receiving certified copy of this order.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
03.07.2024 JUDGE
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable :Yes/No
4 of 4
