Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjit Singh @ Kala @ Mama vs State Of Punjab And Others on 23 January, 2023
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CRWP-9165-2022 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-9165-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision:23.01.2023 Amarjit Singh @ Kala @ Mama ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Others ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY. Present:- Mr. J.S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. HS. Sullar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by District Magistrate, Kapurthala-Respondent No.3, vide which request of petitioner for temporary release to meet his family and taking care of family members under Section 3 (1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act of 1962') has been rejected on the ground that there is danger to complainant party, and he can run away and there is apprehension to breach of peace on his coming on parole besides there can be a law and order situation.
2. A perusal of the paper book reveal that the petitioner is undergoing rigorous imprisonment for life with fine Rs. 55,000/- in default, RI for 2 years and 03 months in case FIR No. 167 dated 28.07.2013 under GYAN CHAND 2023.01.24 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-9165-2022 (O&M) -2- Sections 302, 120-B, 148 of the Indian Penal code and Section 25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station City Kapurthala, District, Kapurthala and the said conviction had been challenged vide appeal number CRA-D-694- DB of 2022, which is pending before this Court.
3. Upon notice of motion being issued on 23.09.2022, respondents No. 1 to 3 filed their reply way of an affidavit dated 03.01.2023, wherein it has been submitted that the request moved by the petitioner for grant of parole had been rejected on the ground that there is danger to complainant party and he can run away. Further stated that there is apprehension to breach of peace on his coming on parole besides an apprehension that there can be a law and order situation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that conduct of petitioner inside Jail is good. The petitioner is inside jail for more than five years. Parole to the petitioner cannot be refused on the ground that there is danger to complainant party or he can run away. He submitted that the apprehension alleged qua breach of peace on his coming on parole or there can be a law and order situation, is imaginary. It is the duty of police and the District Magistrate to give protection to the public.
5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the prayer made by petitioner by way of reply dated 03.01.2023. It is submitted that the petitioner has undergone imprisonment of 07 years 11 months and 14 days of actual custody as on 09.01.2023 including 01 years, 02 months and 29 days as custody after conviction. The parole case of the petitioner was duly initiated and was rejected by Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Kapurthala, on the basis of verification report of Senior Superintendent of GYAN CHAND 2023.01.24 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-9165-2022 (O&M) -3- Police Kapurthala, stating that there is risk to the opposite party due to grant of parole to the petitioner and there is a risk of breach of law and danger of disturbing the peace and atmosphere. He further contends that case FIR No. 612 dated 01.12.2022 under Sections 42, 52-A Prisons Act 1894 has been registered against the petitioner for the possession of mobile phone inside the prison. The conduct of the petitioner inside the prison is not good. He further submitted that 5 other cases are also registered against the petitioner. Hence, it was urged that the petition did not deserves to be allowed.
6. After considering the respective submissions and perusing the record, it transpires that the only reason given by Deputy Commissioner- cum-District Magistrate, Kapurthala, for rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner is that there is risk to the opposite party due to grant of parole to the petitioner and there is a risk of breach of law and danger of disturbing the peace and atmosphere. This apprehension is based on the report of Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the FIR's pertaining to the 5 cases mentioned in the reply submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Central Jail, Amritsar have already been disposed of on merits. He submitted that in case FIR No. 03 dated 07.01.2015, Police Station Dhilwan, Kapurthala has been acquitted vide judgment dated 04.02.2019. In FIR No. 102, dated 13.09.2012, Police Station Sadar, Kapurthala, has been acquitted vide judgment dated 21.01.2019 and in FIR No. 104 dated 14.09.2012, Police Station Sadar, Kapurthala has been acquitted vide judgment dated 21.01.2019 and these facts have not been controverted by the learned State Counsel.
GYAN CHAND 2023.01.24 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this documentCRWP-9165-2022 (O&M) 4
7. It is relevant to mention that Section 3(1)(aa) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners' (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, permits temporary release of prisoner on parole on the grounds as mentioned therein. The petitioner wants to meet his family members. He has never been released on parole earlier. The concession of parole to a convict is regulated by the Statute and the authorities there under cannot act arbitrarily, capriciously or without due application of mind. The decision on such application of convict has to be well reasoned and speaking one.
8. Therefore, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances and finding the impugned order having been passed in a routine mechanical manner and without any sustainable reasons, the impugned order dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a period of six weeks subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds alongwith two surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned District Magistrate. And in addition concemed District Magistrate, may impose such conditions as may be necessary to secure the presence of the petitioner in jail after the parole is over and to ensure that the temporary release is not misused.
9. Petition, accordingly is disposed of.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE JUDGE 23.01.2023 Gyan
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
ii) | Whether reportable? Yes/No GYAN CHAND 2023.01.24 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document