Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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