Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Supreme Court Bars Post-Divorce Maintenance Claims When Wife Voluntarily Waived Maintenance In Settlement Agreement Advocate Is An Officer Of Court, Not Mere Agent Of Client: Allahabad High Court Distinguishes Between Active Concealment & Statement In Ignorance, Slaps Cost On Litigants For Misleading Bench Cannot Summon Accused Mechanically On Protest Petition Without Assigning Justifiable Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Increment Not A Bounty: Allahabad High Court Rules Public Holiday Cannot Delay Pay Hike For Teachers Joining Next Working Day Paying Taxes Or Utility Connections Confer No Legal Ownership Over Govt Land': Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Encroachment 'Cannot Compel Public Authority To Collect Data From Private Bodies': Bombay High Court Quashes CIC Orders Directing SEBI To Procure BSE Records Under RTI Act Section 10 CPC Cannot Stay Previously Instituted Title Suit Pending Subsequent Probate Case; Inherent Powers Under Section 151 Inapplicable When Probate Dismissed: Calcutta High Court Mere Phone Calls Without Transcripts No Ground For Murder Conspiracy: Delhi High Court Clear Violation Of Section 42 NDPS Act': Gujarat High Court Holds Failure To Record Secret Info In Writing Fatal When Police Officer Had Time To Act JK High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Cop Accused Of Threatening Advocate Over Phone Call Without Prior Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Custody Unwarranted For Mere Formalities Once Weapon Is Recovered: Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail In BNS Axe Attack Case Circumstances Of Crime Can Be Assessed During Trial: High Court Upholds Trial Of Minor As Adult Under JJ Act In Murder Case Statutory Deposit Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC Is A Sine Qua Non; Litigant Cannot Stall Auction Sale By Merely Blaming Counsel: Madras High Court Ban Junk Food Within 50 Metres Of Schools: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance To Enforce FSSAI Norms, Protect Children From Obesity

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