Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

Privilege, Not a Right: High Court Upholds Denial of Parole to Convicted Prisoner

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirmed the Superintendent Jail’s decision to deny parole to a life-term convict, citing the individual’s status as a ‘hardcore convicted prisoner.’ The decision was announced on November 6, 2023, by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta.

The petitioner, Kuldeep @ Balkar, had challenged the order dated March 15, 2023, that rejected his application for temporary release on parole. He sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order and a mandamus to direct his release for a 10-week period under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022.

However, the court observed, “The remission and parole are not the vested rights of the prisoners. In fact, these are privileges granted by the State to the convicted prisoners,” underscoring the discretionary nature of parole. This observation came in response to the petitioner’s history of committing offenses while on parole, which placed him squarely in the ‘hardcore prisoner’ category as per the Act’s stipulations.

Justice Deepak Gupta highlighted that the petitioner’s criminal actions during previous temporary releases justified the denial of his parole request. The court dismissed the petition, reinforcing the principle that privileges like parole must be earned through good conduct, particularly when public safety is at stake.

The petitioner’s advocate, Mr. Harsh Rana, had argued for the petitioner’s release based on the premise that he had not been convicted for the offenses committed during parole. Nonetheless, the court’s analysis centered on the legislative intent to prevent further offenses by those already deemed a risk, which ultimately led to the dismissal of the petitioner’s request for release.

The decision has reaffirmed the judiciary’s cautious approach towards granting parole, especially to those with a history of re-offending while out of custody. The ruling is expected to have a significant impact on parole proceedings, especially for prisoners classified as ‘hardcore.’            Date of Decision: 06.11.2023

KULDEEP @ BALKAR VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 

Similar News