Mere Apprehension Of Accused Indulging In Sale Of Contraband Or Causing Breach Of Peace Is No Basis To Deny Parole: P&H HC

While stating that a convict does not have an unfettered right to be released on parole and the same is subject to fulfilment of conditions mentioned in the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the competent authority to pass necessary orders for the temporary release of Petitioner on parole for eight weeks.

The Division Bench of Justice B.S. Walia and Justice Lalit Batra observed that “Mere apprehension of the petitioner indulging in sale of contraband or of causing breach of peace would not bring the case within the ambit of Section 6(2) of the Act so as to enable the competent authority to reject the application for temporary release on parole”.

Advocate Bhupinder Pal Kaur Brar appeared for the Petitioner, whereas DAG Gurpreet Singh Sandhu appeared for the Respondent.

In a brief background, the Petitioner was convicted in a case registered under section 22 of NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 14 years and to pay fine of Rs 1,50,000. In Dec 2021, the Petitioner applied for eight weeks parole in terms of Section 3(1)(d) to meet his family members and to look after his household affairs. The Superintendent recommended the release of the Petitioner and forwarded the same to the District Magistrate as well as the Director General of Police, but the application for release on parole was rejected. Hence, present petition.

After considering the submission and noting that the claim of Petitioner was rejected on the ground that in case he is released on parole, he would indulge in sale of contraband and it would have a bad effect on the young generation and there was apprehension of breach of peace, the High Court held that the impugned order did not refer to any material based on which said satisfaction had been recorded and as was based merely on conjectures and surmises.

The High Court clarified that such a consideration is unsustainable and can be routinely pressed into action for defeating the statutory objective to temporarily release a convict in terms of the provisions of the Act.

Observing that the rejection of the claim of Petitioner for temporary release did not fall within the ambit of either of the twin grounds stipulated in Section 6 (2) and it was based on mere conjectures and surmises without there being any material to arrive on said satisfaction, the Bench held that the impugned order was legally unsustainable.

“As per Section 6 (2) of the Act, a convict is not entitled to be released on parole, if on the report of the District Magistrate, where consultation with him is necessary, the State government or an Officer authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that the release of the convict is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order”, added the Bench.

Accordingly, the Bench directed the competent authority to pass necessary orders within two weeks for temporary release of the Petitioner on parole for eight weeks subject to his furnishing necessary surety to the satisfaction of the competent authority and undertaking to maintain peace and good behavior during the period of parole and also to surrender in Jail after expiry of such period.

Cause Title: Avdesh Kumar v. State of Punjab and Ors. [ Neutral Citation: 2023: PHHC: 081458]

Click here to read / download Order