Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Thereupon, Sh.Varun Sharma, IPS, Superintendent of Police (City), Patiala, in compliance of the aforesaid order, had furnished an affidavit, wherein, it is stated about the petitioner to have been earlier released on emergency parole but she had not surrendered before the jail authorities, on expiry of the parole period. Rather, she evaded the process of law and was apprehended from Nepal border and the same resulted into registration of another FIR against the petitioner. However, keeping in view the directions given by this Court in CRM-M-34013-2009 and also about deferment of parole plea for a period of one year in the circumstances of overstaying of a prisoner released on parole, as observed in CRM-M-

6 of 8 06-07-2021 23:04:15 11:19:46 :::

ornaments, to the extent of 1.343 kgs. as well as stitched clothes were recovered.

Looking at this conduct, it cannot be said that it is a simpliciter case of overstaying of the parole period. Rather, it speaks volumes about the petitioner having devious plan to evade her further detention in the jail, in pursuance of conviction imposed by the Court. Precisely, on this account, it was earlier held by the Court that there is likelihood of the petitioner, leaving the country in an illegal manner and she may also cause some harm to the family members of the deceased and thus, her petition for grant of parole was dismissed.

In the affidavit, filed by Superintendent of Police(City), Patiala, in compliance to the order dated 16.03.2021 passed by this Court, he had stated about having placed reliance upon the directions passed by this Court in CRM-M-34013-2009 and also about the observations made by this Court in CRM-M-32124-2008, with regard to deferment of parole plea for a period of one year, while considering the circumstances of overstay of prisoner, released on parole. However, it is pertinent to mention that facts and circumstances of the present case, are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances, under which, aforesaid directions were given. The case of the petitioner is not a simpliciter overstay of the parole period. In fact, the spot from where the petitioner was arrested and the manner in which she was arrested with fake documents, speaks volumes about her intention to flee away by misusing the benefit of parole granted to her.

In the impugned order dated 03.09.2020, the District Magistrate, Patiala, had appraised various circumstances vis-a-vis conduct of the petitioner, at the earlier time, when she was released on parole and

7 of 8 06-07-2021 23:04:15 11:19:46 :::

also about the registration of FIR, in pursuance of interception of the petitioner along with fake documents, by the police, from the Nepal border. Considering these circumstances, at first instance, when the report was received from the Senior Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate, Patiala, had again written to the Senior Superintendent of Police, thereby apprising him about the revisions/petitions filed by prisoner Ravdeep Kaur, to have not been considered at all and subsequent report was called. However, the report was again made in a mechanical manner. The basis of making such report, as such, has been detailed in the affidavit of Superintendent of Police(City), Patiala. However, as already observed aforesaid, the facts and circumstances of the present case, do not speak about the simpliciter overstay of prisoner on parole and this very fact, itself makes a distinction of the case of the petitioner, for considering her plea of grant of parole.