Punjab-Haryana High Court
Buta Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 17 February, 2025
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
2025.02.18 14:34 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 115 CRWP No.7505 of 2024 DATE OF DECISION : 17° FEBRUARY, 2025 Buta Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL 3 Ok Ok OK Present: | Mr. Mohit Sharma, Advocate for Ms. Priya Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H. S. Deol, Senior DAG, Punjab. 3K OK OK 2 MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (Oral)
Prayer in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance order to respondents to release the petitioner on parole for four weeks to enable him to spend some time with his family and carry out essential repairs to his house.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted by the learned Special Court, Bathinda on 16.11.2022, in FIR No.15 dated 20.04.2019 under Sections 22c/61/85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Nandgarh, District Bathinda, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with a fine of ~1,00,000/-. It is submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody since the date of his conviction and thus has undergone a sentence of approximately 02 years 06 months and 07 days.
3. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner had previously applied for parole, which was rejected by respondent No.2 I attest to the accuracy and document/judgment RAJ KUMAR 2025.02.18 14:34 CRWP No. 7505 of 2024 AUS PHHLOSSTa9 & vide order dated 24.06.2024, on the ground that there was an apprehension that he might indulge in smuggling narcotic substances again or abscond. It is argued that such an apprehension is unsubstantiated and not based on any cogent material. The petitioner has maintained good conduct in jail, and no adverse report has been recorded against him. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Subhash Vs. State of Haryana and another 2004 (2) RCR (Criminal) 491.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for parole, contending that there exists a serious apprehension that, if released, the petitioner may engage in illicit drug activities, which could pose a threat to public order and security. It is further argued that there is a likelihood of the petitioner absconding. However, upon instructions, learned State counsel is unable to dispute the custody period of the petitioner or his good conduct in jail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
6. The primary purpose of parole is to facilitate the reintegration of convicts into society by enabling them to maintain familial and social ties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashfk vs. State of Rajasthan and others 2018(1) SCC (Criminal) 390, while discussing the principles governing parole observe as follows:
"Amongst the various grounds on which parole can be granted, the most important is that a prisoner should be allowed to maintain family and social ties. One of the objectives of sentencing is the reformation of convicts, and I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment RAJ KUMAR 2025.02.18 14:34 CRWP No. 7505 of 2024 UES PHBL OSS Ta9 & for this purpose, granting parole to even life convicts for short durations is justified. It allows them to address personal and familial issues and maintain social connections. The concept of parole is based on humanistic approach, aiming at rehabilitation and reformation rather than mere punitive confinement. A balanced approach in such matters is in the larger public interest, as it aids in preparing prisoners for a successful reintegration in to society."
7. In the present case, apart from a general and unsubstantiated apprehension, the State has not brought forth any material to demonstrate that the petitioner is likely to commit any offence or abscond if granted parole. On the contrary, his good conduct in jail has not been disputed. Denial of parole solely on the basis of an apprehension unsupported by any specific material, would defeat the very purpose of reformation and reintegration, which are fundamental principles governing the criminal justice system.
8. In view of the above discussion and considering the settled legal principles, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted parole for a period of four weeks from the date of his release, subject to his furnishing adequate sureties to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate concerned. The District Magistrate shall be at liberty to impose appropriate conditions to ensure the petitioner's return to custody upon the expiry of the parole period.
17" February, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) 'Taj' JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No Whether Reportable: Yes No I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment