Mere Likelihood Of Absconding While On Parole Not Sufficient Ground To Decline Temporary Release: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently granted parole to a man convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment observing that likelihood of absconding of the prisoner is not a sufficient ground to reject temporary release. A division bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ritu Tagore emphasized that the mere likelihood of absconding while on parole was not a sufficient ground...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently granted parole to a man convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment observing that likelihood of absconding of the prisoner is not a sufficient ground to reject temporary release.
A division bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ritu Tagore emphasized that the mere likelihood of absconding while on parole was not a sufficient ground for denial, as it did not indicate a threat to the security of the state or public order.
"likelihood of absconding while on parole is not a sufficient ground to decline temporary release on parole as mere likelihood of committing a crime is not to be taken as apprehension of a threat to security of State or maintenance of public order."
Adding that involvement of the petitioner in the other cases as mentioned in the custody certificate per se does not afford a ground for rejection of the prayer and it is apparent that the same is not even the consideration for rejection, the Court noted that petitioner has suffered imprisonment of over 11 years.
The bench further said that the benefit of parole is afforded to a convict for maintenance of social and familial ties and to save him from harmful effects of continuous imprisonment and his rehabilitation and reintegration in society and it is always open to the competent authority to impose sufficient and necessary conditions while granting parole.
These observations were made while hearing the plea to quash the order passed by Divisional Commissioner Ambala, whereby petitioner’s request for releasing him on regular parole for ten weeks had been rejected.
The petitioner had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34, 10 years under Section 364/34 of IPC, and six months under Section 120-B/34 IPC by the trial court. A criminal appeal against this conviction and sentence was pending at the time. The petitioner applied for ten weeks of parole to meet his family members, but his request was rejected through the impugned order.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had fulfilled the conditions for regular parole, as specified in Section 3(3) of the Haryana Goods Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022. He had not used parole previously, and this was his first request to meet his family members, who were facing difficulties. The petitioner had a good conduct record in prison. The rejection of his parole request was deemed unjustified and arbitrary.
The Court referred to Section 8 of the Act, which states that parole can denied if, "on the report of the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner of Police or the Superintendent of Police or otherwise, the State Government or the competent authority is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order or cause reasonable apprehension of breach of peace.”
Perusal of impugned order reveals that petitioner’s application for parole has been rejected on the ground that his release might lead to his running away/absconding from parole by shifting/changing his residence, noted the bench.
The Court said that it is a settled position of law that even in a situation where there is apprehension of breach of peace or maintenance of public order or endangerment of security of the State on account of release of the convict, it is the duty of the competent authority to apply its mind on the basis of inputs received by them before allowing or denying the benefit in question. "here has to be tangible material to arrive at such conclusion," it added.
While noting that the petitioner is eligible for consideration of his case for parole as per the affidavit submitted by Dy. Superintendent, the Court said, doubtlessly, temporary release is not a vested right and the same is available in accordance with the applicable provisions. However, once eligibility conditions are fulfilled (as is the case in the present matter), benefit can be denied only in accordance with Section 8 of the Act.
The bench noted further that on pointed query, the counsel for the State was unable to point out any such apprehension available on record to show that release of the petitioner is likely to endanger the security of the State, maintenance of public order or cause reasonable apprehension of breach of peace.
"A sweeping declaration has been made that convict may abscond from parole by shifting or changing his place of residence," it added further.
The bench opined that benefit of parole is afforded to a convict for maintenance of social and familial ties and to save him from harmful effects of continuous imprisonment and his rehabilitation and reintegration in society,
It further clarified that, it is always open to the competent authority to impose sufficient and necessary condition ons while granting parole.
In light of the above the Court ordered to release the petitioner on parole for a period of four weeks from the date of his release, subject to his furnishing adequate surety bonds in terms of statutory provisions and to the satisfaction of the competent authority and other conditions.
Appearance: Hoshiar Singh Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Deepak Grewal, DAG, Haryana.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 208
Case Title: Kapil v. State of Haryana and others