Section 106 IEA Cannot Fill the Gaps in a Shaky Prosecution Case: Rajasthan High Court Rebukes Investigative Lapses in Murder Trial Accident Claim | Ration Card Cannot Decide a Man’s Age: Punjab & Haryana High Court Forgery in Wife’s Name and Defiance of Court Orders Amount to Contempt: Kerala High Court Limitation | Selectively Active Litigant Cannot Seek Liberal Condonation: Delhi High Court Refuses to Revive 1589 Days’ Delay Mere Unnatural Death Within Seven Months Is Not Dowry Death: Delhi High Court Refuses to Reverse Acquittal in Ruby Hanging Case A Partition Suit Is a Suit for Land: Bombay High Court Rejects Plaint for Want of Clause XII Leave Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be A Shortcut To Reclaim Property Registered In Wife's Name: Bombay High Court State Bound By Its Concession; More Meritorious Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment: Supreme Court Balances Equity In Rajasthan Grade III Teacher Recruitment Penalty For Delayed Compensation Is The Employer's Personal Fault — Insurance Company Cannot Be Made To Pay For The Employer's Own Default: Supreme Court Bail Cannot Be a Mechanical Exercise in Murder and Atrocities Cases: Supreme Court Cancels Bail Granted on ‘Extraneous Considerations’ Even A Lathi Becomes A Murder Weapon When Repeatedly Aimed At The Head With Bone-Deep Force: Supreme Court Applies The Virsa Singh Test To Demolish The Defence That Lathis Are Not Deadly Weapons Section 149 IPC While Demanding Proof Of Individual Fatal Blow Runs Contrary To The Very Principle Of Vicarious Liability: Supreme Court Statement Under Section 108 Is Substantive Evidence If Voluntary:  Supreme Court Upholds Conviction In Smuggling Case U.P. Anti-Conversion Act Does Not Apply To Interfaith Live-In Relationships Unless Actual Conversion Is Intended: Allahabad High Court Section 480(6) BNSS | If Trial Is Not Concluded Within Sixty Days… Such Person Shall Be Released On Bail: MP High Court Bombay High Court Lifts Stay on Banks’ Fraud Proceedings Against Anil Ambani Preventive Detention Cannot Survive Without Supplying Relied Upon Documents: Karnataka High Court Reasserts Article 22(5) Safeguards Court Subordinate Who Attended Duty Drunk, Abused Advocates & Misbehaved With Judge's Family Gets No Mercy: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Removal From Service XXXVII Rule 3 CPC | Claim Of 24% Interest Without Prima Facie Contract Cannot Be Blindly Accepted In Summary Proceedings : Madras High Court On Summary Suit Defence Re-Testing Under NDPS Act Cannot Be a Tool to Overcome an Adverse Lab Report: J&K High Court Quashes Charge-Sheet After First Report Ruled Out Heroin

HIGH COURT PAROLE CAN NOT BE DENIED ON MERE CONJECTURES, ORDERS TEMPORARY RELEASE OF CONVICT

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has set aside the rejection of a convict's application for temporary release on parole. The court held that the rejection was based on mere conjectures and surmises, lacking sufficient grounds and violating statutory provisions.

The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Walia and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lalit Batra on June 2, 2023. The petitioner, Avdesh Kumar, had sought the setting aside of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib, rejecting his parole application.

Avdesh Kumar was convicted in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) and was serving a rigorous imprisonment sentence of fourteen years. He had applied for temporary release on parole to meet his family members and attend to his household affairs.

The District Magistrate rejected his application, citing concerns that if released on parole, Avdesh Kumar might engage in the sale of drugs, negatively impacting the young generation, and potentially leading to a breach of peace. However, the court found that these grounds were based on conjectures and surmises, lacking any supporting material.

The court referred to Section 6(2) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, which specifies that a convict shall not be released on parole if their release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order. The court emphasized the need for proper consideration of grounds for rejection, requiring a material basis rather than mere apprehensions.

Citing previous judgments, including Bansi Lal vs. State of Punjab and others, Jatinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, and Paramjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others, the court reiterated that temporary release on parole could only be declined if it posed a threat to the security of the State or maintenance of public order. Mere contravention of the law or potential breaches of peace did not warrant rejection.

Based on its analysis, the court held that the rejection of Avdesh Kumar's application was legally unsustainable. It set aside the impugned order and directed the competent authority to reconsider the matter and pass necessary orders for his temporary release on parole for a period of eight weeks. The release would be subject to Avdesh Kumar furnishing necessary surety, maintaining peace and good behavior during the parole period, and surrendering back to jail upon its expiry.

This judgment serves as a reminder that parole rejections must be based on proper grounds supported by evidence, and mere apprehensions should not be used as a basis for denying temporary release to convicts.

Date of Decision: 02.06.2023

Avdesh Kumar vs State of Punjab and others                   

Latest Legal News