Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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