Supreme Court Strikes Down Expulsion of Bihar MLC as Disproportionate, Orders Immediate Reinstatement Private Banks Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Allegation of Forgery is Not Enough: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute When a Case is Made Out for Bail, Courts Should Not Hesitate: Kerala High Court Allows Bail Despite Commercial Quantity of Drugs Seized Retailers Cannot Be Prosecuted for Manufacturer’s Fault" – Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Pesticide Dealers Mere Issuance of a Cheque Does Not Prove Legally Enforceable Debt": Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonor Case Courts Cannot Ignore Urgent Repairs When Public Safety is at Stake: Calcutta High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Bombay High Court Rejects Premature Dismissal of Partition Suit No Substantial Question of Law – High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Proof of Possession: Allahabad High Court Quashes Relief in Land Dispute Section 197 CrPC | Sanction for Prosecution is a Shield, Not a Sword: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against BIS Officer Landlord is the Best Judge of His Needs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction in Favor of Landowner Vijaya Bank TT Scam | Supreme Court Acquits Jeweller in ₹6.7 Crore Vijaya Bank Fraud Case, Orders Return of 205 Gold Bars Procurement Preference for Small Enterprises is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Policy: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of MSMEs Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked Against Interlocutory Orders of Commercial Courts: Orissa High Court Declares Section 8 Bar Absolute Victim’s Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality to Be Sole Basis of Conviction: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence of Pastor Convicted for Repeated Rape of Minor Providing Set-Top Boxes to Subscribers Constitutes Sale”: Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT on Tata Play Limited Mere Registration of FIR Cannot Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh 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.                   

Similar News