Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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