Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 1 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030115
CRWP-7606-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
207 CRWP-7606-2024
Decided on: 01.03.2025
Anil Kumar ......Petitioner
Versus
State Punjab and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. J.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. Present petition has been filed by Anil Kumar, for directing
the respondents to release him on parole for eight weeks, in case FIR No.
87 dated 30.04.2014, under Sections 21,22,29 of NDPS Act and Section
15 of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, registered at Police Station city
Rupnagar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a
convict in two cases, details of which are as under:
Sr. No. FIR details Status 1 FIR No.87 dated 30.04.2014, registered under Convicted for ten years by
Sections 21, 22,29 of NDPS Act and Section learned Judge Special
15 of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 Court, Rupnagar vide order
registered at Police Station City Rupnagar dated 29.11.2022. Now,
appeal i.e. CRA-S-20-2023
is pending before this
Hon’ble Court.
2 FIR No. 121 dated 06.12.2018, registered Convicted for fifteen years
under Sections 21, 22, 61 of NDPS, Act, at by learned Judge Special
Police Station Sadar Rupnagar. Court, Rupnagar, vide
order dated 21.02.2024.
Now, appeal i.e. CRA-D-
958-2024 is pending before
this Hon’ble Court.
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 22:33:06 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030115
CRWP-7606-2024 2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after conviction,
petitioner has never applied for parole, except once, which has been
declined by respondents vide order dated 25.07.2024. Counsel further
submits that the reason for disallowing the request of the petitioner is
that he is accused/convict in total four criminal cases and if he is released
on parole, he may indulge himself in drug smuggling. Counsel also
submits that out of total four cases, in one case petitioner was released
from jail because the sentence part had already been undergone and in
other case, he had been acquitted. Details of all such four cases alongwith
their status are reproduced herebelow in a tabular form:
Sr. No. Details of case Remarks
1. FIR No.121 dated 06.12.2018, under In the case, Convict Anil Kumar s/o
Sections 21, 22, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, Ram Sarup was convicted on
Police Station Sadar Rupnagar 21.02.2024 by learned Court of Sh.
Sham Lal, Additional Sessions Judge,
Rupnagar and was sentenced as
under:
To undergo RI for 15 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-. In default
of payment of fine to further undergo
imprisonment for 02 years.
2. FIR No.184 dated 09.09.2021, under The convict released from jail on
Section 229-A IPC, registered at 17.01.2022, as he has already
Police Station City Rupnagar undergone the period of sentence
during the under-trial period
3. FIR No.68 dated 06.09.2021, under The convict released from jail on
Section 174-A, IPC, Police Station 16.05.2023, as he has already
City Rupnagar undergone the period of sentence
during his under-trial period.
4. FIR No.05 dated 01.02.2019, under On 04.01.2024, the above-said
Sections 21,22,61,85 of NDPS Act, convict was acquitted from this case
registered at Police Station Sadar as per the order of the learned Court
Morinda. of Sh. Mohit Bansal, Additional
Sessions Judge, Rupnagar.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that during
the pendency of the present petition a fact was brought to the notice of
this Court that mother of the petitioner is all alone and bedridden and is
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 22:33:07 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030115
CRWP-7606-2024 3
suffering from physical ailments. Thereupon, this Court directed the State
to file an affidavit after verifying the facts regarding the health condition
of the petitioner’s mother and how many other members are there in the
family to look after the ailing mother.
6. In response thereto, reply/affidavit dated 26.01.2025 has
been filed alongwith a letter No.103 PBP dated 21.01.2025 by District
Magistrate Karnal to Superintendent District Jail, Rupnagar. As per said
communication, mother of the petitioner is found to be an elderly woman
aged 75 years, who is ill, and she is getting treatment at Simms Hospital
and Advanced Heart Care and Surgical Center, Sector 32, Near Shanti
Mandir, Sushant City, Kurukshetra. It was mentioned that Smt. Lakshmi
Devi (mother of the petitioner) has heart and lung disease and needs
surgery. Presently she is being looked after by the wife of brother of Anil
Kumar. Thus, submit that the mother of the petitioner, being ill and
bedridden, is in need of her another son, i.e. present petitioner and his
release on parole may give a chance to the petitioner to do the needful for
her mother.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court, titled as, ‘Kulwinder
Singh alias Taina Vs. State of Punjab and others’2024 NCPHHC
62430; Law Finder Doc Id #2592372, and submits that merely
registration of number of cases and raising doubt of his getting involved
that too without any basis cannot be made the ground for denying the
relief to a convict for releasing him on parole. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also relies upon the judgment of this Court, titled as, ‘Ajaib
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 22:33:07 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030115
CRWP-7606-2024 4
Khan Vs. State of Punjab and other,’ 2019 SCC online P&H 3133, and
submits that even this Court has considered the right of parole in case
where the accused was categorised as ‘B’ category Gangster. By citing
judgment of this Court, titled as, ‘Sukhjinder Singh Sukhi Vs. State of
Punjab and others‘, (CRWP-10281-2024; Date of Decision:23.10.2024),
Counsel for the petitioner submits that as an instance in Sukhjinder
Singh‘s case (supra), the convict was an accused and total nine cases
were registered against him, but this Court considered that parole is a
valuable right and is a significant step towards reformation of the
accused. It is imperative to consider that a convict is also required to
maintain his contact with the society, which would facilitate in his
reformation as a responsible citizen at the time of his release after
completion of sentence. Thus, prays for quashing of the order dated
25.07.2024 passed by Additional DGP, Prison, Punjab and releasing the
petitioner on parole for a period of eight weeks.
8. While opposing the prayer of the petitioner, learned State
counsel submits that petitioner seems to be a habitual offender and in two
of the cases under NDPS Act, which is crime against society he has
already been held guilty, therefore, his release may result against the
interest of the society and also against himself, because he may again get
involved in the similar activity, thus, submits that the present petition be
dismissed.
9. I have considered the submissions addressed by both sides.
Undisputedly, facts are that out of total four cases, one case is under
Section 174-A IPC, in which the sentence period has been undergone.
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 22:33:07 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030115
CRWP-7606-2024 5
Another case i.e. FIR No. 05 dated 01.02.2019 P.S. Sadar Morinda
registered under Section 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act, petitioner has
already earned acquittal and qua the other two cases under the Provisions
of NDPS Act, though he has been convicted but said finding is not
verified because his appeals before this Court are pending.
10. In Kulwinder Singh‘s case (supra), Division Bench of this
court held that by releasing on parole, every prisoner develops a sense
and hope of life with a view to rehabilitate himself in the society and
same is the paramount object of granting and releasing of the convict on
parole. Moreover, maintaining continuity together with his family, friends
and community would also help the convict to come out of mental agony
and distress on account of continuing imprisonment within four walls of
the jail.
Relevant observations made in paragraph No.9 and 10 of the
said judgment are reproduced herebelow:
9. It is settled position that normally temporary release on
parole or furlough, as may be, is to be granted but can be
declined, in case releasing authority is of the view that such
release would be dangerous to
security of the State or maintenance of public order. Section
6(2) of the Act provides for the same. Section 6 of the Act reads
as under :-
“6. Cases where consultation with District Magistrate
not necessary or where prisoners are not to be
released.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 3 and 4
–
(1) it shall not necessary to consult the District
Magistrate where the State Government is satisfied that
the prisoner maintained good conduct during the period
of his earlier release under any of the aforesaid
sections; and
(2) no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under
this Act, if on the report of the District Magistrate,
where consultation with him is necessary, the State
Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf
is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the
security of the State or maintenance of public order.”
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 22:33:07 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030115
CRWP-7606-2024 6
10. Objectives of parole are twofold i.e. rehabilitation of
offender and protection of society. The main purpose of parole
is that prisoner can maintain continuity together with his
family, friends and community and at the same time to save
prisoner from harmful effects of continuous prisoner life.
Parole enables a prisoner to develop a feeling of self
confidence that there is a life beyond prison. It helps prisoner
to develop a sense of hope and active interest in his life with a
view to rehabilitate the prisoner. Competent authority can
always impose sufficient and necessary conditions while
granting parole. Gainful reference at this stage can be made to
the judgment of Coordinate Bench in “Bansi Lal versus State
of Punjab & Others“, 2016(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1017, where
it was observed as under :-
“11. ….. During incarceration of a prisoner in jail after
his conviction he is entitled for temporary release on
parole which though is a concession and not a right.
However, in order to reform a prisoner a periodic
temporary release on parole for short duration is
necessary. This is a welfare measure in the interest of a
prisoner …..
xx xx xx
xx
15. The term ‘Security of the State’ out of the
expressions of ‘law and order’, and ‘public order’ is
considered more grave. It may arise from within or
outside the State. It is generally understood as an act of
aggression from outside, or militant and terrorists
operations engineered by foreign agencies. It can also
be effected by passing of classified information like
documents, secrets, maps etc. to foreign countries or
through undesirable foreign links. An act which poses a
threat to the State is to be considered as a threat
affecting the security of the State. ‘Public order’,
however, is synonymous with public safety. It is
something more than mere law and order. Every breach
of peace does not lead to public disorder. Maintenance
of public order is intended to prevent grave public
disorder, which is not the same as maintenance of law
and order. The latter is comparatively of a lesser
gravity and in fact of local significance. An act which
does not affect the public at large or has no impact on
it, is not to be taken as an act affecting maintenance of
public order. The distinction between law and order and
public order is one of degree and extent of reach of the
act in question on society. In the case of breach of law
and order it affects individuals directly involved as
distinct from the public at large. This would raise a law
and order problem only. The true test is the potentiality
of the act in question. One act may affect some
individuals and local persons while another though of a
similar nature may impact the public at large. An act
which disturbs the even tempo of life of the public at
large affects the maintenance of public order. These
aspects are to be considered by the concerned District
Magistrates and competent authorities under Act while
deciding to recommend or not to recommend the
temporary release of a prisoner on parole and/or
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 22:33:07 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030115
CRWP-7606-2024 7
passing orders for temporary release by the competent
authorities under the Act. The exercise is not to be
lightly conducted and the concerned District Magistrate
and/or the competent authorities are to apply their mind
on the basis of inputs received by them for
recommending or passing an order as the case may be
for temporary release of prisoners on parole.”
In Ajaib Khan‘s case (supra) need of parole was realised by this
Court in a case of a convict, who was marked and identified as ‘B’
category Gangster despite being involved in several cases.
In the cited case as well as in the case in hand it was/is not the
stand of the respondent/Authorities that the conduct of the petitioner
inside jail is not satisfactory and good. In Sukhjinder Singh‘s case
(supra) Division Bench of this Court, considered the need of release of
the convict on parole for a period of six weeks and as informed by
counsel for the petitioner that convict in that case was involved in nine
criminal cases, thus, submits that after considering the facts of the present
case and paramount considerations of the legal provisions i.e. Section 3
of The Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962,
which are dealt with by the Hon’ble Division Benches of this Court
number of times.
11. This Court has also noticed the affidavit dated 26.01.2025,
wherein the report of learned District Magistrate, Karnal is appended and
same has been considered in the abovementioned part of the present
order, I deem it appropriate to quash the order dated 25.07.2024 passed
by Additional DGP, Prison, Punjab and direct that the petitioner be
released on parole for a period of six weeks from the date of his release to
the satisfaction of learned District Magistrate concerned or any other
authority concerned as per Rules. It is further directed that while
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 22:33:07 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030115
CRWP-7606-2024 8
releasing the petitioner on parole the conditions would be imposed as
required in the jail manual towards the ends of securing the presence of
the petitioner in jail after the completion of the parole period and also for
the reason that the concession of temporary release may not be misused
by the convict. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
March 01, 2025
rashmi
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 22:33:07 :::
[ad_1]
Source link