Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 18 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042317
232 2024:PHHC:042317
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-6895-2023
Date of Decision:18.03.2024
Pawan Kumar ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and Others ...Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present : Mr. Satinder Kumar Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. M.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article
226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct the respondents to
release the petitioner on parole for a period of 08 weeks to meet his mother
and other family members.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a FIR No.126
dated 23.07.2018 under Section 15 of NDPS Act, Police Station Lalru,
District SAS Nagar, Mohali was ordered to be registered against the present
petitioner. Vide the judgment and order dated 07.03.2022, the petitioner was
convicted and was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years. Learned counsel for
the petitioner contends that the petitioner is in custody since 07.02.2022 and
has undergone RI for 10 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that the petitioner is in custody since 07.02.2022 and has undergone total
custody of about 36 months. Learned counsel further contends that in view of
the provisions contained in Section 3 (1)(d) read with Section 2 (b) of the Act
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042317
CRWP-6895-2023 -2
of 2018, the petitioner is entitled to meet his family members. Learned
counsel for the petitioner contends that the Superintendent, Central Jail,
Patiala has also recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of parole.
Still further, the District Magistrate, Panchkula also recommended the parole
of the petitioner. He further contends that even the local Panchayat had also
certified tha there was no threat to the piece and law and order to the society,
in case the petitioner is ordered to be released on parole. However, the
petitioner has not been ordered to be released on parole in the present case.
3. On the other hand learned State counsel has vehemently opposed
the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and prayed that
the present petition may be ordered to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The provisions of the "Act" clearly provides for temporary
release of the prisoners for good conduct on certain condtions as enacted by
the legislature of the Punjab. The temporary release is granted on certain
conditions as envisaged by the provisions of Section 3 of the Act; besides,
temporary release on furlough is granted in terms of Section 4 of Act. Certain
exceptions, have been provided by the Act, but the case of the petitioner does
not fall under the said category. In fact, meeting once family is one of the
most important facets of right to life and the ground for parole is legal and
valid and in accordance with provisions of law. Consequently, the present
petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a
period of two weeks from the date of release on his furnishing requisite
personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate
concerned and the said District Magistrate can also impose such conditions,
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042317
CRWP-6895-2023 -3
as may be considered necessary to secure the presence of the petitioner in jail
after the parole period is over and to ensure that the temporary release is not
misused by securing the bond of mandatory good conduct with a clear
stipulation that in case the petitioner commits any offence during his period
of temporary release, his release warrants would be cancelled as provided
under Rule 4 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners' (Temporary Rules)1963.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
18.03.2024 JUDGE
hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
