Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati 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