Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajiv Kumar And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 14 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037298
CWP-17545-2021 (O&M). -1- 2024:PHHC:037298
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH.
226
CWP-17545-2021 (O&M).
Date of Decision: 14.03.2024.
RAJIV KUMAR AND ANOTHER
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.
Present: None for the petitioners.
Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, DAG, Haryana,
for the respondents.
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the
impugned order dated 16.06.2021 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent
No.2-District Collector, Ambala, Haryana whereby forfeiture of the surety
bond of Rs.1 Lakh each executed by the petitioners regarding the release of
convict Vikas Manchanda on special parole has been ordered.
2 A perusal of the order sheets shows that there is no
representation on behalf of the petitioner for the last two dates in
succession, therefore, this Court is not inclined to adjourn the case
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037298
CWP-17545-2021 (O&M). -2- 2024:PHHC:037298
repeatedly for non-appearance on behalf of the petitioners. Hence, Dr.
Malvika Singh, Advocate, is hereby appointed as legal-aid-counsel to assist
this Court on behalf of the petitioners.
3 The learned Legal-aid-counsel has gone through the paper
book and has vehemently argued that one Vikas Manchanda son of
Purshottam Dass, resident of House No.1486/87, Sikligarh Mohalla, Police
Station Ambala Cantt. was convicted in case FIR No.258 dated 01.09.2009
registered at Police Station Amabala Cantt. and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life.
4 The said convict had availed the benefit of parole/furlough for
10 times prior to March, 2020. There was no default or violation of the
terms and conditions of the parole by the said convict. Due to spread of
pandemic Covid - 2019 globally during the month of March, 2020, a High
Powered Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge of this Court-cum-Executive Chairman,
the Haryana State Legal Services Authority for effecting implementation of
the directions dated 23.03.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the Suo Moto Writ petition (Civil) No.01 of 2020. The High
Powered Committee directed for release of convicts on special parole for a
period of six weeks which was extendable upto 08 weeks if the
circumstances so demanded.
5 In view of the said recommendations given by the High
Powered Committee in its minutes of meeting held on 24.03.2020, the
convict Vikas Manchanda was found entitled to the benefit of special parole
in view of Section 10 (2) (a) & (b) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037298
CWP-17545-2021 (O&M). -3- 2024:PHHC:037298
(Temporary Release) Act, 1988 read with Rule 11 (2) (a) of the Haryana
Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules 2007. The petitioners
furnished surety for the said convict namely Vikas Manchanda for a sum of
Rs.1 Lakh each and the details of the surety bond furnished by the
petitioners is extracted as under:-
Name Bank (Branch) FDR Number and
amount
Rajiv Kumar Axis Bank, Mahesh FDR
Nagar, Ambala Cantt. No.920040012364395
of an amount of Rs.1
Lakh
Vivek Tuli ICICI Bank, Mahesh FDR No.139810000488
Nagar, Ambala Cantt. for an amount of
Rs.1 Lakh.
6 Learned legal-aid-counsel for the petitioners contends that after
furnishing of surety by the petitioners, Vikas Manchanda convict was
released from Central Jail, Ambala, on 03.04.2020. However, during the
period of above said special parole, Vikas Manchanda was arrayed as an
accused in FIR No.249 dated 08.06.2020, under Section 148, 149, 188, 323,
341, 307, 364-A, 511, 395, 397, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station, Ambala
Cantt. along with certain other accused person. He was arrested by the
police on 29.06.2020 before the expiry of the period of special parole.
7 It is stated that the convict Vikas Manchanda was not present at
the place of occurrence and the only role attributed to Vikas Manchanda
was that the car used in the crime was seen parked near his house.
Statement of one Sunil Dutt son of Tomar Singh was recorded in this
regard. However, the said Sunil Dutt later realized his mistake regarding the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037298
CWP-17545-2021 (O&M). -4- 2024:PHHC:037298
attribution of role against the convict Vikas Manchanda in the above said
FIR and executed an affidavit on 06.07.2020 whereby he stated that the
name of Vikas Manchanda was got recorded due to some misunderstanding
and he is satisfied that Vikas Manchanda had no involvement in the said
matter. Thereafter, the regular bail was granted to Vikas Manchanda convict
vide order 27.08.2020 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala. The
above said fact was also noticed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala
while granting bail. Additionally, the convict had approached this Court
vide CRM-M-26988 of 2020 for seeking quashing of the FIR as well as the
other consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua him. It was also
pointed out that the convict Vikas Manchanda could not surrender on expiry
of the period of special parole on account of having been arrested by the
police on 09.06.2020 and therefore, he was not voluntarily absconding. She
contends that the issue as regards the competence of the State to direct
forfeiture of the surety has already been decided by this Court in the matter
of Deepak Vs. State of Haryana and others, bearing CWP No.25735 of
2019 decided on 06.12.2022 along with another CWP No.26335 of 2019,
titled as 'Sanjay Vs. State of Haryana and others.' She submits that under
the given circumstances, the Jail Superintendent was competent to impose
punishment on a convict in an eventuality where the convict has abused the
parole and/or has violated any terms and conditions thereof, however, the
direction for forfeiture of the surety could not have been issued.
8 Learned State counsel for the respondents, however, contends
that the surety in question had been submitted by the petitioners, wherein
they had bound themselves for the conduct of the convict and had also
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037298
CWP-17545-2021 (O&M). -5- 2024:PHHC:037298
undertaken that the convict will surrender in time. He submits that
involvement in the criminal case is an act which is solely attributable to
convict Vikas Manchanda and not on account of any force majure event or
circumstances beyond his control. Hence, he cannot take advantage of his
mis-conduct for avoiding the consequential action of violation of terms and
conditions of the parole. He, however, is not in a position to dispute that in
relation to the issue of forfeiture, a judgment in the matter of Deepak Vs.
State of Haryana and others (supra) has already been passed by this Court
as per which the provisions of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners
(Temporary Release) Rules 2007, do not stipulate conferring any
jurisdiction of forfeiture of the surety bond.
9 In view of the undisputed position as above, since the issue of
competence of the respondents to direct forfeiture has been decided against
the concerned authority (for want of statutory competence and authority)
the present writ petition is allowed.
10 The impugned order dated 16.06.2021 (Annexure P-6) passed
by respondent No.2 ordering forfeiture of the surety bond of Rs.1 Lakh each
executed by the petitioners is set aside. The competent authority shall,
however, be at liberty to take appropriate action/decision against the convict
in the manner known to law.
March 14, 2024. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
raj arora JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
