Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

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 

Latest Legal News