Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 24 October, 2024
Author: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal
CRWP-3571-2024
2024 (O&M)
Sr. No.224
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRWP-3571
3571-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 24.10.2024
Pardeep ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDE
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Additional A.G., Haryana.
***
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)
(Oral
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.03.2024
(Annexure P-1)
1) whereby his application for his release on parole has been
rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
03.01.2017 registered under
Sections 147/148/323/449/302/452/120-B
147/148/323/449/302/452/120 B and 216 IPC read with 149 IPC
and 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sadar Charkhi Dadri and has been
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.64,000/- and in
default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 01
year 10 months and 15 days. He further submits that the petitioner was fully
eligible for grant of parole and his case has erroneously been rejected on the
ground that mobile phones were recovered ffrom him while he was in
custody, but
ut there is no material to indicate that the mobile phones were
CRWP-3571-2024
2024 (O&M)
used in any illegal activity. The petitioner has undergone an actual sentence
of 07 years and 02 months.
3. Learned State counsel while relying on the reply filed by
Deputy Superintendent,
Superintendent District Prison, Jhajjar submits that as mobile
phones had been recovered from the petitioner wh
when he was undergoing the
sentence,, therefore, his
is case for parole has rightly been rejected by the
authorities.
4. Heard.
5. The petitioner has been convicted under Sections
147/148/323/449/302/452/120 B and 216 IPC read with 149 IPC and 25
147/148/323/449/302/452/120-B
Arms Act,, Police Station Sadar Charkhi Dadri and has been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment life imprisonment. He is stated to have
undergone an actual sentence of 07 years, 066 months and 16 days as on
25.07.2024.
6. The case of the petitioner for release on parole has been
rejected on the ground that mobile phones were recovered from him but
there is nothing to indicate that he used those mobile phones to indulge in
any criminal or illegal activities. Recovery of mobile phones per se would
not be enough to deny the valuable right for consideration of application for
grant of parole. A reference
ref may be had to a Full Bench judgment in the
case of 'Achan
Achan Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and others
others'. Relevant paras
are extracted hereinbelow:-
hereinbelow:
"42.
42. Furthermore, the application of the said principle by the
State of Punjab is a misapplication thereof to the prisoners
inmated in the prisons located within the State of Punjab.
Moreover, even if inmated prisoners in the State of Punjab are
convicted in terms of Section 42 of the Prisons Act, but when
there is no further evidence, thus adduced before the learned
Magistrate concerned, rather demonstrative that the mobile
CRWP-3571-2024
2024 (O&M)
phone was used by the inmated prisoner for committing
offences of extortion, or, his demanding ransom. Resultantly,
therebys the said ill made convictions but obviou
obviously suffer from
pervasive fault lines, especially when therebys the said ill
made verdicts of conviction are well appealable before the
learned appellate courts concerned. Therefore, awaiting the
decision on the apposite appeal, it may not be proper for tthe
competent authority to, yet on the premise of the appealed
against verdict of conviction, reject an inmated prisoner's
claim for parole. Paramountly also, when the reporting agency
communicates to the District Magistrate that, in the event of
release of the inmated prisoner, there would be no danger to
the peace and security of the area concerned, whereupon
whereupons, the
apposite rejections but are untenably created restrictions or
fetters rather upon the otherwise well claimed privilege of
parole by the inmated prisoner.
xxx xxx
44. It would also not be out of context to delineate upon the
frivolity of reasons, as occur in the declining orders, as
become passed by the competent authority(ies) upon the
applications filed by the inmated prisoners, wherebys, the they
seek theirs becoming endowed the privilege of parole. The said
reasons are either stereotyped, or, are not well well-informed
reasons, nor they are banked upon any concrete tangible
evidence displaying that, in the event of the inmated prisoner
becoming released
released on parole from the prison concerned,
therebys there would be an evident imminent threat to the
peace and security of the area concerned. The said idly made
orders are but perfunctorily passed orders, besides are based
on equally perfunctorily made repo
reports by the police agencies
concerned, or, by the local panchayat concerned, all whereof
but necessarily display gross non application of mind by the
competent authority(ies) but in the passings of decisions upon
the parole applications. Contrarily, the comcompetent authority
(ies) is required to be making a somber and objective
application of mind to the parole applications, keeping in view
the liberty of an inmated prisoner. Though the espoused liberty
may be severely cramped rather for a limited duration of time,
yet it has, only on account of complete non application of mind
by the authority (ies) concerned, thus led to a spate of
litigations, with concomitant harassment being caused to the
inmated prisoners. Moreover, therebys even the well purposes,
whereon, the application for parole become made, do also
whereon,
become defeated."
7. In view of the above, the
he impugned order is unsustainable and
deserves to be set aside.
CRWP-3571-2024
2024 (O&M)
8. Consequently, the petition is allowed and impugned order
dated 07.03.2024
.2024 (Annexure P-1)
P is set aside. The petitioner would be
released on parole for a period of six weeks subject to his furnishing
necessary surety bonds to the satisfaction of the competent authority and on
expiry of 06 weeks, he shall surrender before the concerned jail.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
JUDGE
October 24,, 2024
vandana
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
