Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karanpreet Singh Alias Giani Alias … vs State Of Punjab And Other on 1 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030364
CRWP-344-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
104 CRWP-344-2025
Decided on: 01.03.2025
Karanpreet Singh alias Giana alias Fateh ......Petitioner
Versus
State Punjab and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 226/227 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance of directions to the respondents to
release the petitioner on eight weeks parole to meet his family members
under Section 3(1) (d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary
Release) Act, 1962.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner
prayed for release on parole for a period of eight weeks, but same has
been declined by noticing the report of Commissioner of Police,
Jalandhar, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner has already been
convicted in several cases, while others are still under trial. Also recorded
that in most of the cases, offences are under Arms Act, NDPS Act, and
there are various assault charges also. Lastly, it has been concluded that
in case, petitioner is released on parole, he may abscond to foreign
country.
1 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 22:32:28 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030364
CRWP-344-2025
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
undoubtedly petitioner is an accused/convict in several cases, but most of
the cases are still pending in which he has been falsely involved. He
further submits that in five of the cases petitioner has already been
acquitted and in all other cases, which are pending, almost in all such
cases, he has been ordered to be released on bail. By referring to the
details of the criminal cases mentioned against the petitioner in reply
filed by the respondents, Counsel handed over a chart alongwith the
status of the cases and same is taken on record, thus, prays for release of
the petitioner on temporary parole and quashing of the order dated
27.11.2024 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar, Punjab for
releasing the petitioner on parole for a period of eight weeks.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the
details of the pending cases clearly show that he is not an ordinary
convict, being involved in about 22/23 cases. Further submits that
undisputedly in five cases, he has been acquitted, but there are other cases
also, where the trial is pending and in one of the case, he has been
convicted and sentenced for a period of seven years. Thus, by defending
the impugned order, opposes the prayer for release on parole.
5. I have considered the submissions and the details of all the
cases alongwith their status, reproduced herein in tabulated form:
COMPARATIVE CHART
Sr. Details of FIRs Status
No.
1 FIR No.15/2021 u/s 307, 323, 324, 120B, Convicted for 7
148, 149, 325, 326, 201 IPC, P.S. Basti years
Bawa Khel2 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 22:32:29 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030364CRWP-344-2025
UNDER-TRIAL CASES
2 (a) FIR No.16/2022 dated 07.02.2022 u/s PWs On bail vide
307/341/34 IPC & Section 25/54/59 Arms order dated
Act, P.S. Division-1, Jalandhar 05.03.2023
2 (b) FIR No.29/2022 dated 07.02.2022 under PWs on bail vide
Sections 384/212/216/116/120-B IPC & order dated
Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, P.S. Division- 17.03.2023
8, Jalandhar
2 (c) FIR No.68/2022 dated 16.06.2022 under PWs On bail vide
Section 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, P.S. Navi order dated
Baradari. 02.03.2023
2 (d) FIR No.37/2021 dated 30.03.2021 under PWs on bail vide
Section 153A/386/504 IPC, P.S. Division- order
2, Jalandhar. dated26.04.2023
2 (e) FIR No.124/2020 dated 22.09.2020 under PWs on bail vide
Sections 323/324/160/148/149 IPC & order dated
Section 67 IT Act, P.S. Division-2, 02.03.2023
Jalandhar.
2 (f) FIR No.174/2016 dated 10.09.2016 under PWs on bail vide
Section 61 Excise Act, P.S. Bhargo Camp, order
Jalandhar dated02.06.2022
2 (g) FIR No.42/2016 dated 01.03.2016 under PWs On bail vide
Section 382/34 IPC, P.S. Navi Baradari, order dated
Jalandhar 07.06.2017
2(h) FIR No.233/2022 dated 26.09.2022 under PWs on bail vide
Section 28/29/30 of NDPS Act & Section order dated
42/52A Prison Act, P.S. STF-4. 04.03.2023
CONVICTION CASES
3(a) FIR No.103 dt. 18.06.2017, u/s 452, 323, Already undergone
341, 506, 509, 148, 149 IPC, registered at vide order dated
P.S. Bhargo Camp, Jalandhar 02.06.2022
3(b) FIR No.198 dated 25.10.2016, u/s 22 of Conviction order
NDPS Act, registered at P.S. Bhargo dt.14.05.2018 for 2
Camp, Jalandhar years by the ld.
Trial Court.
However, the
petitioner has
preferred an appeal
bearing No.CRA-S-
3259-SB of 2018 in
which sentence of
the petitioner is
suspended vide
order dated
06.10.2018.
3 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 05-03-2025 22:32:29 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030364
CRWP-344-2025
ACQUITTAL CASES
4(a) FIR No.137 dated 08.08.2017, under Acquitted on
Sections 364, 307, 323, 324,342, 506, 148, 28.01.2019
149 IPC, registered at P.S. Basti Bawa
Khel, Jalandhar.
4 (b) FIR No.97 dated 15.06.2017, under Acquitted on
Section 323, 341, 506, 148, 149 IPC, 02.06.2022
registered at P.S. Bhargo Camp, Jalandhar.
4(c) FIR No.127 of 2020, under Section Acquitted on
61/1/14 of Excise Act, Section 21, 22 of 26.10.2024
NDPS Act, Section 379B, 382, 482, 465,
467, 468, 471, 120B, 216 IPC and Section
25 of Arms Act, registered at P.S. Bhargo
Camp, Jalandhar.
4 (d) FIR No.202 dated 24.11.2019, under Acquitted on
Section 302, 201, 148, 149 IPC and 16.02.2023
Section 3 (2-V) of SC & ST Act, registered
at P.S. Division No.5, Jalandhar.
4 (e) FIR No.182 of 2018, u/s 52A of the Acquitted on
Prisoners Act, registered at P.S. Kotwali, 13.10.2023
Kapurthala
PRODUCTION WARRANT CASES
5 (a) DDR No.16/2017 dt. 29.05.2017 Act Bail out on
Section 110 Cr. P.C. Police Station Bhargo 08.06.2017
Camp
5 (b) FIR No.68/2019 dated 13.07.20197, under PW on bail vide
Section 61/1/14 Excise Act, P.S. Lambra order dt.02.03.2023
5 (c) FIR No.99 of 2019, under Section 307, PW on bail vide
160, 427, 148, 149 IPC, registered at P.S. order dt.11.02.2020
Division No.1, Jalandhar
5 (d) FIR No.177 of 2019, under Section 279, PW on bail vide
420, 419, 411 IPC and Section 61/1/14 of order dt.13.12.2019
Excise Act, registered at P.S. Division
No.8, Jalandhar
5(e) FIR No.94 of 2020, under Section 160, PW on bail vide
427, 452, 506, 148, 149 IPC, registered at order dt.13.08.2020
P.S. Division No.1, Jalandhar
5(f) FIR no.180 dt.14.11.2019 u/s 307, 379B, PW on bail vide
160, 148, 149, 326, 323, 324 IPC and order dt.22.05.2020
Section 13-3-67 of Gambling Act,
registered at P.S. Division No.6, Jalandhar
5(g) FIR No.30 of 2018, u/s 21, 22, 29 of NDPS Bail out on
Act, registered at P.S. Patara, Jalandhar 05.10.2018
4 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 22:32:29 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030364
CRWP-344-2025
6. The Division Bench of this Court on several occasions dealt
with the provisions of Section 3 of The Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners
(Temporary Release) Act, 1962. In ‘Kulwinder Singh alias Taina Vs.
State of Punjab and others‘ 2024 NCPHHC 62430; Law Finder Doc Id
#2592372, ‘Sukhjinder Singh Sukhi Vs. State of Punjab and others’
(CRWP-10281-2024; Date of Decision: 23.10.2024), and ‘Ajaib Khan
Vs. State of Punjab and other,’ 2019 SCC Online P&H 3133, held that
temporary parole cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the
petitioner is a convict or is involved in many criminal cases or on a
whimsical ground that he may disturb the peace of the society, though
without any basis.
In Kulwinder Singh’s case (supra), Division Bench 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
5 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 22:32:29 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030364CRWP-344-2025
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.”
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
6 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 22:32:29 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030364
CRWP-344-2025
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
7 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 22:32:29 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030364
CRWP-344-2025
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
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.”
Similarly, in ‘Sukhjinder Singh Sukhi Vs. State of Punjab and
others (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
8 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 22:32:29 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030364
CRWP-344-2025
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.
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.
7. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the
order dated 27.11.2024 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar,
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 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
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 22:32:29 :::
[ad_1]
Source link