Mohinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 19192 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mohinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 23 October, 2024

Author: Lisa Gill

Bench: Lisa Gill

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139404-DB
                                                                                1

CRWP-11659-2023 (O&M)




 208-a

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH



1.                                     CRWP-11659-2023 (O&M)
                                       Date of Decision: October 23, 2024
MOHINDER SINGH                                             .....Petitioner

                         Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS                                     ..... Respondents


2.                                     CRWP-11856-2023 (O&M)

BALBIR SINGH                                               .....Petitioner

                 Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS                                 ..... Respondents



CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
        HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR


Present:    Ms. Bandana Trikha, Advocate
            for the petitioner in CRWP-11659-2023 (through VC).

            Mr. Mohit Singla, Advocate
            For the petitioner in CRWP-11856-2023 (through VC).

            Mr. H.S. Deol, Sr. DAG, Punjab.


                         ****


LISA GILL, J.

1. This order shall dispose of CRWP Nos. 11659 and 11856 of

2023, which are taken up together for hearing and adjudication at request and

with consent of learned counsel for parties as petitioners in both the writ

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139404-DB

CRWP-11659-2023 (O&M)

petitions are co-convicts in the matter arising out of FIR No. 1 dated

02.08.2018. Petitioners have been convicted for the offences punishable under

Sections 302, 326, 324, 323, 34 IPC by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Ferozepur vide judgment dated 21.01.2023 and sentenced to imprisonment for

life.

2. Vide order dated 20.09.2023 passed by District Magistrate,

Ferozepur, request for parole by petitioner - Mohinder Singh son of Sh. Dara

Singh (in CRWP-11659-2023) was rejected and similar request by his real

brother petitioner - Balbir Singh son of Dara Singh (in CRWP-11856-2023)

was also declined vide separate order. Aggrieved therefrom, present petitions

have been filed.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner(s) submit that District Magistrate

has arbitrarily rejected the prayer for parole vide impugned orders without

taking into account all facts and circumstances of the case and has infact

proceeded in violation of settled principles. Petitioners, it is submitted, are

entitled to parole in terms of applicable provisions of Punjab Good Conduct of

Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 and there is no impediment to grant

thereof. Both the petitioners have undergone over six to seven years of

imprisonment having been in custody since the year 2018. It is, thus, prayed

that present petitions be allowed.

4. Petitions have been opposed by learned counsel for State who

prays for dismissal thereof.

5. We have heard learned counsel for parties.

6. It is a matter of record that petitioners sought benefit of parole in

order to meet their families and do household works. Prayer for parole by

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139404-DB

CRWP-11659-2023 (O&M)

Mohinder Singh was dismissed by Deputy Commissioner-cum-District

Magistrate, Ferozepur on the ground that SSP had not recommended the same

and that Panchayat was against his release on parole raising an apprehension

that in case he is released he may commit murder again. Therefore, there is

apprehension of breach of peace and disruption of public order. Similar order

was passed in respect to petitioner - Balbir Singh with an addition that he had

earlier been involved in matter under Section 307 IPC in the year 2015 and

offence in the present case had been committed.

7. Petitioners have attached panchayatnamas of village panchayat in

question, recommending their release on parole whereas in replies filed in the

petitions on behalf of State, it is stated, that respective panchayats had opined

against release of petitioners on parole. While noting this discrepancy, learned

counsel for State had been directed to seek instructions. It was verified that

both panchayatnamas had infact been submitted by panchayats in question.

The only objection raised for opposing the petitions is that petitioners had

been involved in some matter in 2015-16. It is specifically mentioned in the

reply filed on behalf of State in CRWP-11856-2023 that after conviction,

petitioner - Balbir Singh has never availed the benefit of parole and his

conduct is peaceful in jail. Petitioner - Mohinder Singh had been found

innocent in the said earlier case whereas petitioner - Balbir Singh was

involved in the matter under Section 307 IPC, therefore, there was

apprehension of petitioners committing offence, if released. Clearly, such

reasoning is opposed to the basic principles underlying the grant of benefit of

parole to convict. Though District Magistrate, Ferozepur in the impugned

orders has referred to order dated 31.01.2023 passed in CRWP-11856-2023, it

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139404-DB

CRWP-11659-2023 (O&M)

is apparent that impugned orders have been passed without adherence to the

principles as laid down.

8. As per the Statute and as held in a plethora of cases temporary

release of a prisoner on parole or furlough can be denied only if such release is

likely to endanger security of State or maintenance of public order. Competent

authority is under a duty to take a considered decision in this regard after due

regard to the factual matrix and the decision has to be based or founded on

substantial material.

9. In the case of Bansi Lal versus State of Punjab and others

2016 (4) RCR (Criminal) 1017, it has been held by Division Bench of this

Court as under:-

" The term 'Security of the State' out of the expressions of 'law and order', and 'public order' is considered more grave. It may arise from within or outside the State. It is generally understood as an act of aggression from outside, or militant and terrorists operations engineered by foreign agencies. It can also be effected by passing of classified information like documents, secrets, maps etc. to foreign countries or through undesirable foreign links. An act which poses a threat to the State is to be considered as a threat affecting the security of the State. 'Public order', however, is synonymous with public safety. It is something more than mere law and order. Every breach of peace does not lead to public disorder. Maintenance of public order is intended to prevent grave public disorder, which is not the same as maintenance of law and order. The latter is comparatively of a lesser gravity and in fact of local significance. An act which does not affect the public at large or has no impact on it, is not to be taken as an act affecting maintenance of public order. The distinction between law and order and public order is one of degree and extent of reach of the act in question on society. In the

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139404-DB

CRWP-11659-2023 (O&M)

case of breach of law and order it affects individuals directly involved as distinct from the public at large. This would raise a law and order problem only. The true test is the potentiality of the act in question. One act may affect some individuals and local persons while another though of a similar nature may impact the public at large. An act which disturbs the even tempo of life of the public at large affects the maintenance of public order. These aspects are to be considered by the concerned District Magistrates and competent authorities under Act while deciding to recommend or not to recommend the temporary release of a prisoner on parole and/or passing orders for temporary release by the competent authorities under the Act. The exercise is not to be lightly conducted and the concerned District Magistrate and/or the competent authorities are to apply their mind on the basis of inputs received by them for recommending or passing an order as the case may be for temporary release of prisoners on parole."

10. In the instant case, learned counsel for State is unable to point out

any substantial material for denying the benefit of parole to

petitioners/arriving at a conclusion of endangerment of security of State or

maintenance of public order.

11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, impugned

orders dated 20.09.2023 are not sustainable. Present cases call for

reconsideration of the matter by competent authority in accordance with law

and parameters as laid down for grant of parole.

12. Accordingly, both orders dated 20.09.2023 in the petitions are set

aside. Both the matters are remitted to the competent authority, who shall

reconsider the same and decide them expeditiously and definitely within a

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139404-DB

CRWP-11659-2023 (O&M)

period of four weeks from receipt of certified copy of this order, by passing a

speaking order, in accordance with law.

12. Copy of the order be conveyed to petitioners.

                                                     (LISA GILL)
                                                       JUDGE




                                                (SUKHVINDER KAUR)
October 23, 2024                                   JUDGE
Rts
            Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
            Whether reportable: Yes/No




                                       6 of 6