SSP's Apprehensions Are Not Substantial, Punjab and Haryana High Court Granting Parole to Convict

High  Court sets aside District Magistrate's denial of parole, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence over mere apprehensions. On April 26, 2024, the Punjab and Haryana High Court overturned a decision by the District Magistrate of Bathinda, granting parole to Sukhpal Singh. The judgment, delivered by Justice Harkesh Manuja, criticized the reliance on unsubstantiated apprehensions by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) and highlighted the importance of emotional health for prisoners, affirming parole as a part of their human rights.

Lack of Substantial Evidence: The court observed that the District Magistrate's decision was based solely on the SSP's report, which lacked substantial material evidence. "The report submitted by the SSP Bathinda records that the release of petitioner was going to be a threat to State Security/maintenance of public order; however, this apprehension is not supported by any substantial material," Justice Manuja noted. The judgment emphasized that decisions affecting prisoners' rights must be grounded in concrete evidence rather than mere apprehensions​​.

Previous Acquittal and Non-hardcore Prisoner Status: Justice Manuja pointed out that the District Magistrate had erred in considering Sukhpal Singh as a threat based on his involvement in two cases, one of which he had already been acquitted. "The petitioner already stood acquitted in FIR No.68 dated 10.03.2018," the judgment stated, adding that Section 5-A of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, was not applicable as Singh was not classified as a hardcore prisoner​​.

Human Rights and Emotional Health: The court referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Asfaq vs. State of Rajasthan, which underscores the significance of parole and furlough for the emotional health of prisoners. "Meeting of prisoners with their families has been held to be very essential for their emotional health and thus, falls within the term ‘sufficient cause’ being part of their human rights," the court cited from the Supreme Court's ruling​​.

The judgment elaborated on the legal principles surrounding parole, emphasizing that parole should serve as a tool for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. "The provisions of parole and furlough provide a humanistic approach towards those lodged in jails," the court stated, highlighting that parole helps offenders maintain societal ties and prepare for successful re-entry into society​​.

Justice Manuja remarked, "The order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Bathinda, is not legally sustainable and is accordingly set aside." This statement reflects the court's firm stance on ensuring legal decisions are based on solid evidence rather than unsubstantiated fears​​.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision to grant parole to Sukhpal Singh marks a significant step towards upholding prisoners' rights and ensuring justice is not overshadowed by unverified apprehensions. By emphasizing the need for substantial evidence and recognizing the emotional health of prisoners, this judgment reinforces the legal framework governing parole and human rights in the Indian judicial system.

Date of Decision: April 26, 2024