Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana HC Criticizes declining order for convict's parole, grants relief

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent decision, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh quashed and set aside a declining order of parole and ordered the release of the petitioner on parole for eight weeks. The petitioner, Rashpal Singh, had been convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Sections 21/23/28/29/60/61/63 of the NDPS Act by the learned Judge Special Court, Ludhiana. He had challenged the conviction and sentence through a criminal appeal (CRA-D-14-2022) before the High Court.

During the pendency of the appeal, Singh filed a motion seeking relief for his release on parole for eight weeks to meet his family members. However, the motion was rejected through a declining order enclosed in Annexure P-2. Singh challenged the declining order through a writ petition before the High Court.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur, who delivered the oral order on behalf of the Bench, held that the declining order was ill-informed and not founded upon any credible material. The primary reason cited for denying parole was that there were chances of the petitioner re-indulging in criminal activities and causing a breach of law and order in the locality concerned. However, the Court held that both these reasons were not supported by any credible material and were founded upon mere apprehensions.

The Court also noted that there was no adverse report by the Superintendent of the Jail concerned regarding Singh's conduct during his incarceration in jail. Thus, the Court held that the impugned order suffered from non-application of mind and deserved to be quashed and set aside.

The Court allowed the writ petition and ordered the release of the petitioner on parole for eight weeks subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds in a sum of Rs. One Lakh each to the satisfaction of the Competent Authority. The petitioner was also required to undertake that he would return to the prison concerned immediately on expiry of the parole period. The Court reserved liberty to the jurisdictional SHO concerned to forthwith arrest the petitioner and produce him before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned in case he breached the conditions of the parole.

D.D-28.Apr.23

RASHPAL SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.                   

Latest Legal News