Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukhi vs State Of Punjab And Others on 29 November, 2023
213 2023:PHHC:151779
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-9262-2023
Date of Decision: November 29, 2023
SUKHJINDER SINGH @ SUKHI ........Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
The present petition has been filed under the provisions of Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking issuance of direction to respondent for grant of six weeks parole to the petitioner 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 contends that the respondent No.3 has rejected the application for grant of parole to the petitioner on the ground that if the petitioner is released on parole , he may pose danger to the State security coupled with the fact that petitioner is a habitual offender and multiple cases have been registered against him and he can commit serious crimes and also threatened the prosecution witnesses in under trial cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the orders dated 23.09.2020 passed in CRWP-5291-2020 (Annexure P-1), CRWP-7053-2021 TEJWINDER SINGH 2023.12.01 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2023:PHHC:151779 -2- CRWP-9262-2023 (Annexure P-2) dated 06.01.2022 CRWP-7052-2022 (Annexure P-3) dated 27.07.2022 and CRWP-1874-2023 (Annexure P-4) dated 12.04.2023 to contend that the petitioner was granted parole on the orders of this Court on four occasions and he never misused the concession of parole. Moreover, he surrendered before the Police authorities within time.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the petitioner in the present petition on the ground that he is involved in nine more cases of serious offences under various provisions of Indian Penal Code and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, however, learned State could not controvert the fact that the petitioner was granted concession of parole by this Court vide orders passed in Annexures P1 to P-4.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, it transpires that the petitioner as and when released on parole had surrendered well in time and has not misused the concession of parole granted to him and there is nothing on record to suggest that after his release he has indulged in any criminal activity or there is no specific instance given in the reply that how the release of the petitioners would create apprehension of threat to society. The Division Bench of this Court in Avdesh Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2023(3) RCR (Criminal) 564 has negated the ground taken in the present petition i.e. the apprehension of the petitioner indulging into criminal activity and threat to society by causing breach of TEJWINDER SINGH 2023.12.01 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2023:PHHC:151779 -3- CRWP-9262-2023 peace. The ground taken by the respondent No.3 while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for parole would not bring the case within the ambit of Section 6(2) of the Act to provide any justifiable ground to the competent authority to reject the application for temporary parole.
5. A similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Jassa Singh @ Jassa Vs. State of Punjab 2016(5) RCR (Criminal) 522 where it was held that rejection of parole on unsubstantiated apprehension of disturbing the State security would not be sufficient to invoke Section 6(2) of the Act to reject the application for temporary release.
6. A two judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1978(1) SCC 579, speaking through Justice V.r. Krishna Iyer, has held as follows:-
"21 Realisim is a component of humanism which is the heart of the legal system. We come across cases where parties have already suffered 3, 4 and in one case (the other day it was unearthed) over 10 years in prison. These persons may perhaps be acquitted-difficult to guess. If they are, the injustice of innocence long in rigorous incarceration inflicted by the protraction of curial processes is an irrevocable injury. And, taking a pragmatic view, while life imprisonment may, in law, last a whole life, in practice it hardily survives ten years, thanks to rules of remission. Thus, at the worst, the prisoner may have to serve some more years, and, at the best, law is vicariously guilty of dilatory deprivation of citizen's liberty, a consummation vigilantly to be vetoed. So, a circumstance of some consequence, when considering a motion for bail, is the period in prison already spent and the prospect of the appeal being delayed for hearing, having regard to the suffocating crowd of dockets pressing before the few Benches."TEJWINDER SINGH 2023.12.01 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2023:PHHC:151779 -4-
CRWP-9262-2023
22. It is , not out of place to mention that if the State takes up a flexible attitude it may be possible to permit long spells of parole, under controlled conditions, so that fear that the full freedom if bailed out, might be abused, may be eliminated by this experimental measure, punctuated by reversion to prison. Unremitting insulation in the harsh and hardened company of prisoners leads to many unmention- able vices that humanizing interludes of parole are part of the compassionate constitutionalism of our system."
23. The basics being thus illuminated, we have to apply them to the tangled knot of specifics projected by each case. The delicate light of the law favours release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. The corrective instinct of the law plays upon release orders by strapping on to them protective and curative conditions. Heavy bail from poor men is obviously wrong. Poverty is society's malady and sympathy, not sternness, is the judicial response."
7. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure P-5 passed by respondent No.5 dated 31.08.2023 is set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a period of six weeks on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate and he shall surrender on the last date of parole at 5:00 pm at the jail gate.
29.11.2023 (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
tejwinder JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
TEJWINDER SINGH
2023.12.01 15:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document