Himachal Pradesh High Court
Gurjant Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 17 October, 2024
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Sushil Kukreja
1
( 2024:HHC:9909 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.10485 of 2024 .
Date of Decision : 17.10.2024.
Gurjant Singh ...... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ......Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Gill, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr.Yashwardhan Chauhan, Senior Additional
Advocate General, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms.
Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocates General
and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral)
The instant petition has been filed for grant of parole.
2. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.65,500/- with default sentence vide judgment dated 22.09.2007. The petitioner has undergone total substantive sentence of 19 years, 7 months and 4 days excluding remission/parole as on 24.09.2024. Apart from the aforesaid case, the following cases have been registered against the petitioner:
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2
( 2024:HHC:9909 ) "i) Case FIR No. 40/2003, u/s 307, 326, 323, 147, 148 of the IPC & Section 25 of the Arms Act, sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.
19,000/- with default sentence, awarded by the Ld. Sessions Judge (Forest) Shimla (H.P.) on 10/01/2014.The sentence commenced simultaneously with life imprisonment, but the sentence in default of fine kept in abeyance.
ii) Case FIR No. 180/2023, dated 03/12/2023, under Section 325 of the IPC pending before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan (H.P.). The petitioner is on bail in this case."
3. The petitioner had earlier been released on parole 10 times. The petitioner surrendered in jail in time on many occasions, however, on one occasion, he was late by 12 days and his over-stay period was regularized by the Competent Authority. Apart from the above, the petitioner has been continuously granted parole by the Competent Authority on health ground from September, 2021 to August, 2024.
4. The petitioner had lastly filed CWP No. 6839 of 2024 for extension of parole on medical grounds and this Court had extended his parole till 08.08.2024, as would be evident from the orders dated 19.07.2024, 23.07.2024 and 25.07.2024, respectively. However, on 08.08.2024, this Court directed the petitioner to report back to the Superintendent Jail on 12.08.2024 by 5.00 p.m. Accordingly, he was directed to report back vide office W/T message dated 09.08.2024. But, the petitioner instead of complying with the orders passed by this Court again submitted an application to the jail authorities for extension of his 3 ( 2024:HHC:9909 ) parole for further period of two weeks due to ailment of his mother. This request, however, was rejected by the Competent Authority vide order dated 20.08.2024 and the petitioner was directed to surrender back to the Superintendent Jail as per the orders passed by this Court on 08.08.2024. Eventually, the petitioner reported back to the jail authorities on 21.08.2024. Meaning thereby, the petitioner did not report back to the jail authorities despite the orders dated 08.08.2024 and the further order passed by this Court on 14.08.2024 which reads as under:
"Before the petitioner can be heard in the matter, let him comply with order dated 8th August, 2024 within a period of one week.
List on 21st August, 2024."
5. It is more than settled that parole cannot be claimed as a matter of right vested with the prisoner. It is a privilege available to the prisoner on fulfilling certain conditions. This is a discretionary power which has to be exercised by the authorities conferred with such powers under the relevant rules/regulations. The Court cannot exercise these powers, though once the powers are exercised, the Court may hold that the exercise of powers is not in accordance with the rules. Thus, parole, as such, is not a right vested with the prisoner and the State has all the powers to put reasonable restrictions upon prisoners convicted for the offence.
4
( 2024:HHC:9909 )
6. As noticed above, the petitioner has not complied with the orders passed by this Court by surrendering to the jail authorities within the due time granted by this Court and thus is not worthy of any credence for the time being.
7. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed along with pending application, if any.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge KHEM Digitally signed by KHEM RAJ THAKUR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=b3bb0330a36091c417dc6aa42212c14ca RAJ ec7825ba4158459325bd600d273f58b, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=6aa9db3b3e85e608387fb6f0f a0bb2ddacd2e1b82f232ca3c0adea331da33983, CN=KHEM RAJ THAKUR THAKUR Reason: I am approving this document (Sushil Kukreja) Location:
Date: 2024-10-21 13:47:50 Judge 17th October, 2024.
(krt)