Second Petition For Parole Based Merely On Change In Date Of Daughter's Marriage Is Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected a second plea for parole filed by a convict under the NDPS Act, seeking temporary release to attend his daughter's marriage.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Kuldeep Tiwari emphasized that filing a fresh petition solely based on a change in the date of marriage after a previous petition had been dismissed was not maintainable.

"This Court is unable to comprehend, how a fresh petition is maintainable merely on the change of the date of marriage, once the earlier petition for the same cause of action was dismissed as withdrawn," the Court said.

The Petitioner's attempt to secure parole was viewed critically in light of earlier parole violations and subsequent legal proceedings. It was revealed during the proceedings that the petitioner had previously breached the terms of his parole and was subsequently arrested following the registration of a fresh case. Currently incarcerated since January 26, 2024, the petitioner sought parole after a delay of 1043 days from his return to jail on March 19, 2021, upon completing his earlier parole period.

The Court also scrutinized the conduct of the Petitioner's Counsel, noting discrepancies in the presentation of relevant documents.

The Single-Judge Bench remarked on the deliberate omission of a significant speaking order that detailed the petitioner's parole violations. "It seems that the speaking order has been deliberately concealed from this Court, and only by changing the date of marriage of petitioner's daughter, a fresh petition has been filed," observed the Court.

Criticizing the petitioner's actions, the Court remarked, "It reflects from the conduct of the petitioner that an attempt has been made to conceal the relevant speaking order, so that he could easily obtain a favourable order of parole. The conduct of the petitioner is highly deprecable and cannot be appreciated."

Despite acknowledging the potential for imposing exemplary costs due to the frivolous nature of the petition, the Court refrained from doing so in consideration of the petitioner's incarceration status. "The conduct of the petitioner is highly deprecable, and cannot be appreciated. Therefore, this instant petition is dismissed," the Court said.

Furthermore, the Court said, "Though the present petitioner is liable to be burdened with an exemplary costs, for filing such a frivolous petition, but considering the fact that he is behind the bars, this Court refrains itself to do so."

Cause Title: Brij Lal v. State of Punjab and Others [Neutral Citation: 2024: PHHC: 064177]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocate Amandeep Singh Rai

Respondent: Deputy Advocate General Pardeep Bajaj

Click here to read/download the Order