Mere Likelihood Of Absconding Is Not A Ground To Deny Parole: P&H High Court Orders Release Of Murder Convict
The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the order denying the petitioner's request for parole. The Court emphasized that parole, although not a vested right, must be denied only if the convict's release poses a genuine threat to the security of the state, maintenance of public order, or a reasonable apprehension of a breach of peace, as specified in Section 8 of the Haryana Goods Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022. Petitioner was seeking the quashing of an order denying his request for parole. The petitioner, who is serving a sentence, applied for parole to meet his family members, a request that was denied based on the fear that he might abscond by changing his residence. The petitioner contested this decision, stating that there was no valid ground for denial and that he fulfilled all the necessary conditions for parole under the relevant law.
A Division Bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ritu Tagore held, “Doubtlessly, temporary release is not a vested right and the same is available in accordance with the applicable provisions. However, once eligibility conditions are fulfilled (as is the case in the present matter), benefit can be denied only in accordance with Section 8 of the Act. Admittedly, no such ground is mentioned in the impugned order neither taken in the reply filed by way of affidavit”
The Court said, “It is, thus, apparent that in case convict is eligible in terms of the conditions as prescribed in Section 11 of the Act, parole can be denied only in case if his release is likely to endanger security of the State, maintenance of public order or cause reasonable apprehension of breach of peace”
The Court found that the denial of parole was not justified. The Court referred to the applicable legal provisions and noted that parole could only be denied if the release of the convict posed a threat to the security of the state, maintenance of public order, or a reasonable apprehension of a breach of peace. The Court said, “A sweeping declaration has been made that convict may abscond from parole by shifting or changing his place of residence. Apart from the fact that the same is not a valid ground for denial of parole, there is no evidence for such apprehension as well. Likelihood of absconding while on parole is not a sufficient ground to decline temporary release on parole as mere likelihood of committing a crime is not to be taken as apprehension of a threat to security of State or maintenance of public order.”
In this case, there was no concrete evidence to support the fear that the petitioner would abscond, and the grounds mentioned in the rejection order were insufficient. The Court added, “It is a settled position of law that even in a situation where there is apprehension of breach of peace or maintenance of public order or endangerment of security of the State on account of release of the convict, it is the duty of the competent authority to apply its mind on the basis of inputs received by them before allowing or denying the benefit in question. There has to be tangible material to arrive at such conclusion. Admittedly, request for parole has not even been rejected on the grounds as mentioned in Section 8 of the Act.”
Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order and ordered the petitioner's release on parole for a period of four weeks, subject to certain conditions, including providing surety bonds and informing authorities about any change of residence.
Cause Title: Kapil v. State of Haryana & Ors., [2023:PHHC:135523-DB]
Click here to read/download Judgment