Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 December, 2023
Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal, Kirti Singh
2023:PHHC:155556-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 101 CRWP-11705-2023 Date of decision : 06.12.2023. Raj Kumar ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .. Respondents CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present:- | Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. 2K KK Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.11.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.3 whereby his application for his release on parole has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application of the petitioner for his release on parole has been dismissed on the ground that he had overstayed while he was on parole in the year 2012 although subsequently, he had been granted emergency parole on 12.04.2023 and had promptly surrendered on its expiry and did not misuse its concession. The petitioner has undergone an actual sentence of about ten years and is not involved in any other case.
3. Issue notice to the respondents. At the asking of the Court, Ms. Ishma Randhawa, Addl. A.G., Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and submits that the case of the petitioner has been rightly rejected as he had overstayed for a period of 257 days while he was on parole in the year 2012. She also submits that the petitioner had already availed parole for a period of six weeks in this calender year.
4. Heard.
SONIA GUGNANI 2023.12.06 17:43 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh (101) CRWP-11705-2023 -2-
5. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 302/120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act in FIR No.561 dated 02.08.2009 at Police Station Kotwali, District Bathinda and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He is stated to have undergone an actual sentence of about 10 years. The petitioner has availed a period of parole of 06 weeks earlier this year and has promptly surrendered on its expiry.
6. The petitioner is stated to have overstayed the period of parole in the year 2012, however, thereafter, when he was released on parole earlier this year, he had promptly surrendered on its expiry and did not misuse the concession of parole. It would be inappropriate to decline the benefit of parole to the petitioner on the ground of overstay about a decade ago. The petitioner has undergone substantial period of sentence and it is necessary for the prisoner to maintain his contact with the society which would facilitate his reformation as a responsible citizen at the time of his release after completion of sentence.
7. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 01.11.2023 (Annexure P-3) is set aside. The petitioner would be released on parole for a period of four weeks subject to his furnishing necessary surety bonds to the satisfaction of the competent authority and on expiry of 04 weeks, he shall surrender to the concerned jail.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (KIRTI SINGH) December 06, 2023 JUDGE sonia gugnani Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SONIA GUGNANI 2023.12.06 17:43 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh