Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 28 October, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141493
264
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP No.3914 of 2024
Date of decision: 28th October, 2024
Kuldeep Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Ms. Neha Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shiva Khurmi, Asst. Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent/State.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is seeking issuance of directions to
respondents to grant parole for two months to him in FIR No.15 dated
20.04.2019 under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Nandgarh, District
Bathinda.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a matter
of record that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case
other than the FIR in question, in which he has since been convicted on
16.11.2022 by the learned Trial Court at Bathinda. Learned counsel
further submits that on the basis of totally vague apprehension that the
petitioner could yet again be involved in drug smuggling and abscond,
the official respondents had rejected his case for parole. It has been
further submitted that ever since his conviction, the petitioner has been
maintaining good conduct inside the prison.
1 of 4
CRWP No.3914 of 2024 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141493
3. Learned counsel submits that under Section 3(1)(a) of the
Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, the
statue clearly defines that the State Government may, in consultation
with the District Magistrate and subject to such conditions and in such a
manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified
in sub-section any prisoner if the State Government is satisfied that a
member of the prisoner's family had died or is seriously ill.
4. Learned counsel further submits that there is no
apprehension of the petitioner indulging in any criminal activity. In
support of her submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the
judgment of this Court rendered in 'Varun @ Gullu vs. State of
Haryana & others' CRM-M No.34013 of 2019 d/d 09.04.2010 and
'Mohammad Shehbaz vs. State of Punjab & others' CRWP No.3196
of 2022 d/d 05.07.2022. A prayer has therefore, been made for
extending the benefit of parole to the petitioner as he would like to meet
his parents who are suffering from age-related illness.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer
and submissions made by the counsel opposite, has reiterated the
averments made in the reply filed by way of affidavit of Manjit Singh
Sidhu, PPS, Superintendent Central Jail, Bathinda. However, on a
pointed query, it has not been disputed, on instructions, that during his
incarceration after his conviction on 16.11.2022, the petitioner has not
been involved in any other criminal case or any untoward incident.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material on record.
7. A Division Bench of this Court in 'Jugraj Singh @ Bhola
vs. State of Punjab, 2010(25) RCR (Crl.) 138, has held as under:
2 of 4
CRWP No.3914 of 2024 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141493
"It is also conceded position that the petitioner can be
temporarily released on parole for four weeks under Clause
(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Punjab Good
Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to enable him to meet
his family members. In our opinion, the release of a convict
on parole is a wing of reformative process. Section 3 of the
Act has been enacted as a reformative measure with an
object to enable the prisoner to have family association or to
perform certain family obligations and rituals. Until and
unless sufficient material is available with the authorities
giving solid reasons for declining the temporary release of a
convict on parole, this benefit should not be declined to him.
In the instant case, no such strong material or basis has
been relied upon by the respondents while rejecting the
prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole for four
weeks to meet his family members."
8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'Babu Singh vs. State of
UP', 1978 (1) SCC 579 has also observed that "unremitting insulation
in the harsh and hardened company of prisoners leads to many
unmention-able vices that humanizing interludes of parole are part of
the compassionate constitutionalism of our system".
9. In the case in hand, it is a matter of record that the petitioner
has not been released on parole ever since his conviction. It has also not
been disputed by the learned State counsel that the petitioner has
maintained good conduct inside the prison. Further, there is no
apprehension of any breach of peace or the petitioner being involved in
any illegal activities during the parole period.
3 of 4
CRWP No.3914 of 2024 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141493
10. In the circumstances, this Court does not deem it appropriate
to deprive the petitioner of the company of his family members and to
meet his ailing parents. It needs to be reiterated that a prisoner does not
stop being a human being merely because he has been convicted for an
offence. The prisoner/convict cannot be deprived of the company of his
loved ones.
11. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner
is ordered to be released on parole for a period of 6 weeks from the date
of his release on his furnishing requisite personal and surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the District Magistrate concerned, and the District
Magistrate may impose such conditions as may be considered necessary
to secure the presence of the petitioner back in jail after the parole
period is over and also to ensure that the temporary release is not
misused, by securing a 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 in Rule 4 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners' (Temporary
Release) Rules, 1963.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
JUDGE
October 28, 2024
rps
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
