Absence of Videography Alone Not Sufficient For Bail When Custody is Less Than a Year: Delhi High Court Refuses Bail in Commercial Quantity Heroin Use of Permitted Synthetic Colour in Dal Masur Still Constitutes Adulteration: Punjab & Haryana High Court Uphold Conviction Penalty Must Not Result in Civil Death of Professionals: Delhi High Court Reduces Two-Year Suspension of Insolvency Professional, Citing Disproportionate Punishment Right of Cross-Examination is Statutory, Cannot Be Denied When Documents Are Exhibited Later: Chhattisgarh High Court Allows Re-Cross-Examination Compounding after Adjudication is Impermissible under FEMA: Calcutta High Court Declines Post-Adjudication Compounding Plea Tears of a Child Speak Louder Than Words: Bombay HC Confirms Life Term for Man Who Raped 4-Year-Old Alleged Dowry Death After Forced Remarriage: Allahabad High Court Finds No Evidence of Strangulation or Demand “Even If Executant Has No Title, Registrar Must Register the Document If Formalities Are Met” — Supreme Court  Declares Tamil Nadu's Rule 55A(i) Ultra Vires the Registration Act, 1908 Res Judicata Is Not Optional – It’s Public Policy: Supreme Court Slams SEBI for Passing Second Final Order in Fraud Case Against Vital Communications Ltd A Person Has Died… Insurance Company Cannot Escape Liability Without Proving Policy Violation: Supreme Court Slams High Court for Exonerating Insurer in Fatal Accident Case Calling Someone by Caste Name Is Not Enough – It Must Be Publicly Done to Attract SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Acquits All in Jharkhand Land Dispute Case Broken Promises Don’t Make Rape – Mature Adults in Long-Term Relationships Must Accept Responsibility: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against NRI Man Every Broken Relationship Can’t Be Branded Rape: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Retired Judge Accused of Sexual Exploitation on Promise of Marriage No Evidence, No Motive, Not Even Proof of Murder: Supreme Court Slams Conviction, Acquits Man Accused of Killing Wife After Two Years of Marriage You Can’t Assume Silence Is Consent: Supreme Court Sends Back ₹46 Lakh Insurance Dispute to NCDRC for Fresh Determination “Voyage Must Start and End Before Monsoon Sets In — But What If That’s Practically Impossible?” SC Rules Against Insurance Company in Shipping Dispute No Criminal Case Can Be Built on a Land Deal That’s Three Decades Old Without Specific Allegations: Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of FIR Against Ex-JK Housing Chief Just Giving a Call for Protest Doesn’t Make One Criminally Liable - Rail Roko Protest Quashed Against KCR Ex-CM: Telangana High Court Ends 13-Year-Old Proceedings for 2011 Telangana Agitation

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                   

Similar News