Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 31 January, 2012
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron, Rameshwar Singh Malik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Writ Petition No.169 of 2012
Date of decision:-31.01.2012
Rakesh Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. Saron
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Rameshwar Singh Malik
Present: Mr. A.R.Trikha, Advocate for the petitioner.
S.S. SARON, J.
The criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for directing the respondents to allow parole to the petitioner for four weeks so as to enable him to repair the roof of his house. An application filed by the petitioner for grant of parole has been declined by the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur (respondent No.3) vide impugned order dated 22.11.2011 (Annexure P-1). It is, therefore, prayed that the said order be quashed.
The petitioner was arrested in case FIR No.140 dated 20.09.2006 registered at Police Station Dina Nagar District Gurdaspur for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He was tried and convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide his order dated 02.09.2008. The petitioner against his conviction and Crl. Writ Petition No.169 of 2012 -2- sentence, has filed Crl. Appeal No.796-DB of 2008 which is pending in this Court. While the petitioner has been undergoing imprisonment, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Gurdaspur (respondent No.2) initiated his regular parole to the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur (respondent No.3). The police verification about the conduct of the petitioner was called for by the District Magistrate Gurdaspur (respondent No.3) so as to consider his case for grant of parole. The District Magistrate, Gurdaspur (respondent No.3) after receiving the report vide his impugned recommendations dated 22.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) did not recommend the parole case of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Director General of Police (Prisons) Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent No.1) declined parole to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was troublesome and had a bad reputation; besides, he was allowed parole for the period from 21.08.2009 to 19.09.2009 but he absconded and surrendered on 03.12.2009. He was punished under Section 9 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (Act-for short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for his failure to surrender after expiry of parole. Aggrieved against the order not granting parole to the petitioner, the present petition has been filed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the parole has wrongly been declined to the petitioner and in fact in terms of Section 6(ii) of the Act, the parole could only be declined if the release of the petitioner was likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. It is submitted that the Crl. Writ Petition No.169 of 2012 -3- Panchayat of Bala Pindi has given a Panchayatnama (Annexure P-2) recommending the release of the petitioner on parole for which nobody would have any objection. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the grant of parole.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The learned District Magistrate, Gurdaspur in terms of his impugned recommendation dated 22.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) observed that the case of the petitioner was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur who has reported that the petitioner-Rakesh Kumar is resident of Village Bala Pindi, Police Station Behrampur. It was stated that the petitioner does not enjoy good reputation; besides, he is troublesome and in case he was released on parole, there was danger of breach of peace in the village. Moreover, the petitioner was earlier released on parole and he absconded. It was stated that the petitioner was earlier granted four weeks parole on 21.08.2009 and after the expiry of parole, he absconded. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against him and the amount of surety furnished was recovered. The Tehsildar, Gurdaspur was asked to get the surety amount deposited in the treasury but till the date of recommendation (Annexure P-1), the same had not been deposited in the Government treasury. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Gurdaspur has also been asked to get deposited the surety amount from the convict on account of the fact that the petitioner had absconded. Therefore, in view of the report of Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur and the fact mentioned Crl. Writ Petition No.169 of 2012 -4- therein, it was recommended that the parole be not granted to the petitioner.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the provision of Section 6(ii) of the Act, a parole is to be declined if on the report of the District Magistrate, where consultation with him is necessary, the State Government or an Officer authorized by him in this behalf is satisfied that the release of the prisoner was likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.
In the present case, the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur (respondent No.3) on the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur has found that there was danger to the maintenance of peace in the village in the event of release of the petitioner; besides, he had jumped parole on an earlier occasion on 21.08.2009. The said reasons recommended by the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur (respondent No.3) and accepted by the Director General of Police (Prisoners) Punjab (respondent No.1) are not to be interfered with in exercise of supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The ground of maintenance of peace in the village is indeed a circumstance that would entail the maintenance of public order. This Court, therefore, in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction finds no ground for interference in the order recorded by the authorities for declining the parole. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that no interference with the recommendations of the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1) is warranted.
Crl. Writ Petition No.169 of 2012 -5-
Consequently, there is no merit in the criminal writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(S.S. Saron) Judge (Rameshwar Singh Malik) 31.01.2012. Judge A.kaundal