Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arun Kumar vs State Of U.T. Chandigarh And Others on 11 February, 2011
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
Crl.W.P. No.117 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.W.P. No.117 of 2011
DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 11, 2011
Arun Kumar
.....PETITIONER
Versus
State of U.T. Chandigarh and others
....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
---
Present: Mr. Sunil K. Chaudhary, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate,
for respondents/U.T. Chandigarh.
..
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The petitioner, who is a life convict and undergoing the imprisonment in Model Jail, Chandigarh, has filed the instant petition for setting aside the impugned order dated 10.09.2010 (Annexure P1), whereby the prayer of the petitioner to release him on parole for 28 days to meet his parents, has been rejected by respondent No.1 on the ground that the house of the petitioner was found locked and no family member of the petitioner was found staying continuously at the given address.
Pursuant to notice, a reply by way of affidavit of Sunil Bhatia, Superintendent, Model Jail, Chandigarh along with documents Annexures Crl.W.P. No.117 of 2011 -2- R/1 to R/4 has been filed, which is taken on record.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
It is the case of the petitioner that he had applied for his temporary release on parole on 15.6.2010, which was duly recommended by the Superintendent, Model Jail, Burail, Chandigarh. In pursuance of the recommendation, District Magistrate, U.T., Chandigarh sought the report from the local police. It is further the case of the petitioner that the local police, without verifying the antecedents of the petitioner, made a false report to the effect that the house of the petitioner, i.e., H.No.464-A, Sector 33, Chandigarh was locked and no family member of the petitioner was found staying continuously at the given address. On the basis of the said false report, respondent No.1 has arbitrarily and without any justification or reasoning rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release on parole.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the report submitted by the local police is false because the parents of the petitioner have no other alternative accommodation in Chandigarh except the aforesaid house. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed by respondent No.1 without any material or basis and the same is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-UT Chandigarh contended that according to Annexure R-3, District Magistrate, Chandigarh, on the basis of the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, UT, Chandigarh, had not recommended the parole release case of the petitioner as it was found that no one in the locality including father of the petitioner is ready to take his responsibility and that the local police have an Crl.W.P. No.117 of 2011 -3- apprehension that while on parole he may be absconded. Therefore, respondent No.1 has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release on parole and the said order does not require any interference by this Court.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the release of a convict on parole is a wing of reformative process. Section 3 of the Act has 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. Until and unless sufficient material is available with the authorities giving solid reasons for declining the temporary release of a convict on parole, this benefit should not be declined. This Court in Jai Ram Versus State of Punjab, 2001(2) RCR (Crl.) 158 has held that parole can be refused where release of the prisoner is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order. The mere apprehension in the minds of the opposite party that the release of the prisoner would endanger their lives would not constitute a valid ground for denying parole to the petitioner. Further in Boota Singh Versus State of Punjab, 1997(4) RCR (Crl.) 155 this Court has held that breach of peace is not a good ground for refusing the grant of parole to a convict. In the instant case, no strong material or basis has been relied upon by the respondents while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole for 28 days to meet his parents.
Hence, the application is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.09.2010 is quashed and the respondents are directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for temporary release on parole in light of the observations made in this order and pass necessary orders, in accordance Crl.W.P. No.117 of 2011 -4- with law, within a period of two weeks' from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
February 11, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL )
vkg JUDGE