Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Lal vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 March, 2022
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Vikas Suri
CRWP-11855-2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
101 CRM-W-206-2022 in/and
CRWP-11855-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision : 03.03.2022
Surjit Lal
....Petitioner
V/s
The State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present : Ms. Bandana Trikha, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr. SPS Tinna, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
(The proceedings are being conducting through Video
Conferencing, as per instructions)
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J. (ORAL)
CRM-W-206-2022 Application for preponement of the main case from 21.04.2022 has been filed on the ground of ailment of wife of the petitioner. Since the pleadings are complete, the application for preponement is allowed. The main case is taken on board for hearing today itself.
Application stands disposed of.
CRWP-11855-2021 Petitioner seeks the benefit of The Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Amendment Act, 2015, for allowing him six weeks parole to manage the medical expenses and other necessary arrangements for his wife's surgery under Section 3(1) (a)(a) of the aforesaid Act.
The challenge has been raised to order dated 25.11.2021 (Annexure P-1), whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar had decided the said claim in pursuance of the order dated 10.11.2021 passed by this Court in CRWP-8213- 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2022 01:53:04 ::: CRWP-11855-2021 2 2021 (Annexure P-4) filed on an earlier occasion. Vide said decision, the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar has rejected the case of the petitioner on account of the fact that there was a report of the Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar (Rural) that there were 15 cases registered against the petitioner, most of them pertaining to NDPS Act and he was a habitual drug peddler and also posed a threat to the State security. It had been further observed that petitioner had absconded during the hearing of the case and there was an apprehension that he might abscond again from the process of law. Lastly, it has been observed that there was no provision for grant of an emergency parole for three to six months under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary) Release Act, 1962.
A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that petitioner had been convicted in FIR No.02 dated 15.01.2015 under Section 21/61/85 of the NDPS Act and Section 177 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 6 months vide order dated 29.11.2016 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal i.e. CRA-D-151-DB-2017, which is stated to be pending before this Court.
Petitioner had made a representation for releasing him on parole on account of the fact that his wife is suffering from the 3rd degree bleeding hemorrhoids for a long time, which needs to be operated and is life threatening, if the said surgery is not carried out.
At the initial stage, when the petitioner approached this Court, the factum that he had earlier availed parole in the years 2017, 2018 and 2019 and had surrendered, had not been denied by the State. Rather, the Court had ordered that the certificate of the treatment of the wife be verified, which had been duly confirmed by the State. Vide order dated 10.11.2021, this Court had given a 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2022 01:53:04 ::: CRWP-11855-2021 3 direction to decide the representation which had been rejected as noticed above. The reasoning given by the competent authority is totally irrational.
A perusal of the certificate (Annexure P-6), would go on to show that the petitioner had been granted parole between the years 2017 to 2019 on five occasions and he had surrendered in jail on time after availing all the paroles ranging from 2 weeks to 8 weeks. Neither the reply nor the impugned order talks about any violation made on behalf of the petitioner on all these occasions. Thus, in our considered opinion, the apprehension that petitioner would indulge in drug peddling again and the fact that he might abscond from the process of law seems to be baseless as the old record of the petitioner cannot be considered to be holding good ground for all times to come.
From the record, it seems that one FIR No. 119 under Section 21/29/61/85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Division No.03, Jalandhar was lodged against him on 15.06.2017 when he was on parole. But Counsel for the petitioner has produced the release warrant in the said FIR and that vide order dated 18.10.2021, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar had released the petitioner and acquitted him of the charge framed against him by giving him the benefit of doubt. Thus, the findings that the petitioner had been convicted under the NDPS Act and sentenced on 14.08.2017 apparently is not correct since the release warrant shows that it was the date of the registration of the case with the Sessions Court whereas the case was decided on 18.10.2021.
Lastly, the reasoning had been given that there is no provision to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 3 to 6 months is baseless as under
Section 3(1) (a)(a) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Amendment Act, 21015 on account of the ailment of his wife, the benefit of release on parole can be granted for a period up to 8 weeks. In such
3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2022 01:53:04 ::: CRWP-11855-2021 4 circumstances, because the prayer had been made for the grant of an emergency parole for 3 to 6 months by the petitioner, it would not mean that he cannot be considered for the outer limit of 8 weeks under the Statute.
The Division Bench in case of Arun Kumar vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh and others, 2011 (2) AICLR 361 had held that release of a convict on parole is a wing of reformative process. The provisions of the Act have been enacted as a reformative measure with an object to enable the prisoner to have family association or to perform certain family obligations and rituals. Sufficient material being available in the form of medical certificate of the wife who is ill as noticed earlier is present and there should be solid reasons for declining temporary release on parole. The impugned order is totally baseless and the right cannot be brushed under the carpet by the authorities while passing the said order and therefore, the same is not sustainable.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.11.2021 (Annexure P-1) cannot be sustained and is quashed. The criminal writ petition is allowed. The petitioner be released on parole for a period of 6 weeks from the date of his release subject to furnishing the requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Jalandhar. He shall surrender on time in the jail on the expiry of the said period after his release.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE (VIKAS SURI) JUDGE March 03, 2022 Ajay Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2022 01:53:04 :::