Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikas @ Billu vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062696
CRWP-8149-2023 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-8149-2023
Date of Decision : May 06, 2024
VIKAS @ BILLU
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr. R.S.Dhull, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhupender Singh, DAG, Haryana.
KULDEEP TIWARI, J.
1. Through the instant criminal writ petition, as filed under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 4 of The
Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2022'), the petitioner seeks
quashing of the impugned order dated 17.7.2023 (Annexure P-1),
whereby, the respondent No.2, has declined to grant of furlough to the
petitioner. In addition, the petitioner also seeks issuance of directions
upon the respondent(s) concerned to temporarily release him on furlough
for a period of 4 weeks.
2. The petitioner has been convicted by the learned trial Court
concerned in case FIR No. 224 dated 17.10.2011, under Sections 148,
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062696
149, 302, 307, 216, 120-B IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act,
registered at P.S. KUK, District Kurukshetra. Consequent to the drawing
of the verdict of conviction, the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life and aggrieved against that judgment, the
petitioner filed an appeal baring CRA-D-285-DB-2015 titled "Rajesh @
Raja and others Vs. State of Haryana" before this Court, which was
dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2019.
REASONS RECORDED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER
(ANNEXURE P-1) FOR DECLINING PAROLE
3. A bare glance at the impugned order dated 17.07.2023
(Annexure P-1), makes revelations that the decision to decline furlough
to the petitioner was anchored upon the petitioner being involved in 21
cases. What further weighed with the respondent No.2, i.e. the author of
Annexure P-1, to draw the impugned declining order, was that, primarily
the District Magistrate, Jind has not recommended to release the
petitioner on furlough.
4. The report of the District Magistrate, Jind was also perused
by this Court. As per the report, it transpired that the learned Magistrate
concerned has considered that the petitioner is involved in total 21 other
criminal cases, which included serious offences like loot, dacoity and
murder. It is further recorded that the petitioner was declared as a
proclaimed offender, and thereupon, FIR Nos. 251/2012 and 255/2012,
under Section 174-A IPC, were registered at Police Station KUK, District
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062696
Kurukshetra, therefore, the petitioner falls within the ambit of hardcore
prisoner and is not found to be entitled for the relief of furlough.
ANALYSIS
5. Before embarking upon the process of evaluating the validity
of the impugned order (Annexure P-1) and penning down any opinion
upon the instant petition, it is deemed imperative to capture an overview
of some significant and relevant legal provisions and propositions.
6. The definition, as assigned to "hardcore convicted prisoner"
in Section 2(1)(g)(iv) of the Act of 2022, is extracted hereinafter:-
"2.(1)(g)(iv) "hardcore convicted prisoner" means any
prisoner who has been found in possession or detected
of using wireless communication device or its
components or any unauthorised electronic device inside
the jail premises;"
7. Section 6(3) of the Act of 2022, which became banked upon
by the respondent No.4 while drawing the impugned order (Annexure
P-1), is also extracted hereinafter:-
6(3). Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(1), a hardcore convicted prisoner, who has not been
awarded death penalty or life imprisonment till natural
life and has completed five years of his sentence
(including maximum two years under trial period),
without committing any major jail offence or any
cognizable offence during the last five years, shall be
entitled for emergency parole or regular parole or
furlough at par with convicted prisoners. Such period of
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062696
five years shall be counted from the date of his latest
offence or act which falls under the category of
hardcore convicted prisoner:
Provided that a hardcore convicted prisoner who has
been sentenced for imprisonment till natural life shall be
eligible for emergency parole or regular parole at par
with convicted prisoners only after completion of seven
years of imprisonment after conviction:
Provided further that if the hardcore convicted prisoner
so released temporarily violates any condition of parole
or furlough or commits any cognizable offence, he shall
be debarred from such release for next three years."
8. The instant petition has been opposed by the State by filing
reply on the ground that there is no absolute legal right to claim furlough
and further makes much stress upon the criminal antecedents of the
petitioner to submit that the petitioner cannot be released on furlough.
9. This Court has considered the submissions made by both the
l;earned counsel for the parties and is of the view that the impugned order
deserves to be interfered.
10. So far as the antecedents of the petitioner are concerned, as
per the reply submitted to the instant petition, the petitioner is involved in
21 criminal cases and out of total 21 cases, the petitioner has earned
acquittal in 14 cases and in 3 cases, he has been convicted and sentenced
to the period already undergone by him and in 2 cases, he is on bail and
in 2 cases, he has been convicted and is serving the sentence. The
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062696
impugned order is based merely upon the antecedents of the present
petitioner, however, there is no such substance on record to conclude that
the petitioner may involve in any other criminal case. Further, the
observations that his release may disturb the peace of society is also
without any substance on record. Undoubtedly the furlough is a
concession granted to the petitioner and cannot be claim as a right, but
such benefit can be refused in case the refusal is based on intelligent
differentia and has nexus to the object of Rules. In this regard, this Court
can place reliance upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in CRWP No.10236 of 2018, "Virender @ Dhillu Vs. State
of Haryana and others" decided on 26.4.2018.
11. Furthermore, in case titled as "Rakesh Chehal Versus State
of Haryana and others", CRWP-1949-2022, Decided on: 29.07.2022, a
Division Bench of this Court has made the hereinafter extracted
observations:-
"In the reply there is no rebuttal to such assertion.
Petitioner was seeking furlough to meet his family
members. In the impugned order it has been observed
that the prisoner's family can meet him in jail as per
rules. We do not approve of such reasoning. One of the
clear objectives of releasing a prisoner on furlough is to
enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family
life and to deal with the familial and social matters. Such
objective is part of the reformative process. A convict
being released on furlough to have interaction and
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062696
company of his family members in the confines of his
house, cannot be equated to the family members meeting
up with the inmate/convict within the jail premises."
12. In view of the above, and considering the fact that the last
conviction which the petitioner suffered was in February 2012, whereby,
he was sentenced to undergo the period already undergone by him and so
far his being involved in case under Section 174-A IPC, is concerned, he
was convicted in those cases way back in the year 2013 and sentenced to
the period already undergone by him. Therefore, this Court can safely
observe that the impugned order deserves to be interfered, as all these
aspects have not been considered. There is no substance on record to
substantiate that the release of the petitioner could cause threat to the
peace of the society.
13. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this Court
deems it fit and appropriate not to curtail the liberty of the petitioner.
14. In sequel, after allowing the present petition, the petitioner
is ordered to be released from the prison concerned, on 4 weeks' parole,
by the Superintendent of the prison concerned, from the period
commencing from the morning of 10.5.2024 to the evening of 10.9.2024.
On expiry of the above term of parole, the petitioner shall forthwith re-
step into the prison concerned and if he does not do so, thereupon, the
SHO of the jurisdictional police station concerned shall forthwith arrest
the petitioner and thereafter, shall produce him before the learned Judicial
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062696
Magistrate concerned.
15. Personal surety bonds comprised in a sum of Rs.50,000/- are
ordered to be furnished by the petitioner, before the Superintendent of the
prison concerned.
16. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
May 06, 2024 JUDGE
ajay-1
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
7 of 7
