Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rishi Pal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 20 August, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:110164
248
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP No.792 of 2024
Date of decision: 20th August, 2024
Rishi Pal
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Ravinder Bangar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gagandeep S. Chhina, Asst. Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondent/State.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.
1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of impugned order dated 10.01.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the official respondent No.4 vide which his application for regular parole was rejected, with a further prayer to release the petitioner on regular parole for 70 days in FIR No.437 dated 26.10.2005 under Sections 302, 201 of the IPC registered at Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in the FIR in question. The appeal of the petitioner against his conviction was dismissed uptil the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and he is currently serving his sentence in District Jail, Nuh. Learned counsel further contends that 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 07-09-2024 02:51:40 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:110164 CRWP No.792 of 2024 2 the petitioner applied for seven days of parole, which was rejected by respondent No.4 on the grounds that the petitioner is classified as a 'hardcore criminal' under Section 2(1)(g)(i)(v) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'), which is reproduced as under:
'hardcore convicted prisoner' means any prisoner -
- who fails or failed to surrender himself within a period of ten days from the date on which he should have so surrendered on the expiry of the period of parole or furlough for which he was released"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner was categorized as a 'hardcore criminal' in the impugned order annexed as Annexure P-1, primarily due to his failure to surrender on time on 24.04.2021, as required by the terms of the earlier parole granted to him. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had surrendered in the jail after his earlier parole, after a delay of 10 days. Learned counsel has further emphasized that the petitioner has already been punished for this violation under the provisions of the now - repealed Act of 2018, which prohibited him from reapplying for parole for a period of one year.
4. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner had previously applied for parole to attend the marriage of his daughter, by approaching this Court in CRWP 1611 of 2022, titled as 'Rishi Pal vs. State of Haryana and others'. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed
2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 07-09-2024 02:51:41 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:110164 CRWP No.792 of 2024 3 on 23.02.2022, however, the petitioner could not be released in time due to a delay in furnishing the requisite bail bonds. In support, attention of this Court has been drawn to Annexure P-3.
5. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 22 years and according to the Haryana Government's policy regarding premature release of life-convicts (Annexure P-2), he is eligible only for permanent release, not parole.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the petitioner wishes to meet his family members and thus, a sympathetic view be taken and the petitioner be granted parole. Learned counsel for the petitioner assures that the petitioner will maintain public peace and order, while on parole, and will adhere to all terms and conditions, as may be imposed. In support, learned counsel has placed reliance upon 'Varun @ Gullu vs. State of Haryana & others' CRM-M No.34013 of 2009, 'Mohd. Shehbaaz vs. State of Punjab & others' CRWP No.3196 of 2022 and 'Tarsem Singh @ Joginder Singh vs. State of Punjab' CRWP No.8081 of 2022.
7. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the application filed by the petitioner for parole was rightly rejected vide impugned order as he falls within the category of 'hardcore criminals' under the Act. Learned State counsel argues that the petitioner is a habitual offender, as he is involved in 11 criminal cases including some 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 07-09-2024 02:51:41 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:110164 CRWP No.792 of 2024 4 case while in jail. Learned State counsel has also pointed out that the petitioner had misused the earlier parole granted on 11.05.2020 by surrendering late by ten days.
8. In response to a specific query from the Court, the State has not disputed that, of all the other criminal cases registered against the petitioner, he has either served out his sentence or been acquitted during trial, as also detailed in paragraph 2 of the reply filed by the State dated 01.04.2024. The learned State counsel has also not disputed that the petitioner has served over 22 years in custody as of today.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.
10. The petitioner has prayed for his release on parole for a period of 70 days to meet his family since he has not been able to meet them ever since he surrendered back in April, 2021.
11. The purpose of granting parole to a convict is closely aligned with the reformative objectives of the justice system. Parole, is not merely a temporary release from incarceration but an essential measure aimed at facilitating the rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners into society. This provision allows for the temporary release of convicts to reconnect with their families, fulfill familial obligations, and participate in family rituals. Such opportunities are vital for maintaining 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 07-09-2024 02:51:41 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:110164 CRWP No.792 of 2024 5 the convict's social ties and supporting their reintegration into the community.
12. The philosophy behind parole recognizes that continuous, unbroken imprisonment can negatively impact a prisoner's mental and emotional well being. Parole serves as a means of offering prisoners a reprieve from this environment, allowing them to experience normalcy, emotional support, and human connection, all of which are crucial to their rehabilitation.
13. While declining a prayer for parole, some solid justification must be brought forth by the authorities concerned; denying parole could be seen as punitive rather than reformative, contradicting the very purpose behind parole. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'Babu Singh vs. State of U.P.' 1978 (1) SCC 579, underscored the importance of parole as a 'humanizing interlude' within the criminal justice system. Hon'ble the Apex Court recognized that 'unremitting insulation in the harsh and hardened company of prisoners' could lead to various negative consequences, while the 'compassionate constitutionalism' of the Indian justice system mandates that prisoners be granted these temporary releases as part of their overall rehabilitation.
14. In essence, parole is a critical tool in a reformative process, balancing the need for justice with the need for compassion, and 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 07-09-2024 02:51:41 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:110164 CRWP No.792 of 2024 6 recognizing the importance of familial and social bonds even during incarceration.
15. In the present case, it is a matter of record that the petitioner has been in custody for nearly 22 years. While the petitioner, no doubt, was previously involved in several criminal cases, it has not been disputed by the learned State counsel that he has either served out his sentence in those cases or has since been acquitted. It is also on record that the petitioner was granted parole by this Court on 23.02.2022 to attend his daughter's marriage, even after he had allegedly violated the provisions of the 2018 Act, by surrendering late by ten days after his earlier parole, leading to his classification as a 'hardcore criminal'.
16. Given these circumstances, this Court does not find it appropriate to deprive the petitioner of the company of his family members. It must be reiterated that a prisoner does not cease to be a human simply because he has been convicted of an offence; therefore, he cannot be deprived of the company of his loved ones.
17. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a period of eight weeks from the date of release upon furnishing the requisite personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate concerned. The District Magistrate is directed to impose such conditions as may be deemed necessary to secure the petitioner's return to jail after the parole period 6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 07-09-2024 02:51:41 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:110164 CRWP No.792 of 2024 7 and to ensure that the temporary release is not misused by the petitioner. This includes securing a bond of mandatory good conduct with a clear stipulation that, in case the petitioner commits any offence during this period of temporary release, his release warrant will be cancelled as provided under the relevant rules of the Act.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
JUDGE
August 20, 2024
rps
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 07-09-2024 02:51:41 :::