Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

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