Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

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