Mere Apprehension Of Indulging In Sale Of Contraband Or Causing Breach Of Peace Cannot Be Ground To Reject Parole Application: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that mere apprehension of the accused indulging in the sale of contraband or causing a breach of the peace cannot be a ground to reject an application for parole.
A Division Bench of Justice B.S. Walia and Justice Lalit Batra observed, “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. … Accordingly, in view of the fact that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for temporary release does not fall within the ambit of either of the twin grounds stipulated in Section 6 (2) of the Act besides is based on mere conjectures and surmises without there being any material to arrive on said satisfaction”
The Bench said that the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that if he is released on parole, he would indulge in the sale of contraband giving a bad effect to the young generation.
Advocate Bhupinder Pal Kaur Brar appeared on behalf of the petitioner while DAG Gurpreet Singh Sandhu appeared on behalf of the State.
In this case, prayer in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was for the setting aside of an order passed by the District Magistrate rejecting under Section 6 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, the application of the petitioner for release on eight weeks parole on the ground that if the petitioner is released on parole he can indulge in activities of selling drugs which can give bad effect to the young generation besides on account of apprehension of breach of peace.
The petitioner was convicted under Section 22 of the NDPS Act (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fourteen years along with a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-, vide judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge in 2021. The petitioner was confined in a District Jail and therefore, applied for eight weeks of parole which got denied by the District Magistrate.
The High Court in the above context of the matter said, “Admittedly, in the case in hand, the claim of the petitioner had been rejected on the ground that in case he is released on parole, he would indulge in sale of contraband besides it would give bad effect to the young generation and there was apprehension of breach of peace. The impugned order does not refer to any material on the basis of which said satisfaction has been recorded and as is based merely on conjectures and surmises. 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.”
The Court noted that the order is legally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside and hence, the petitioner is entitled to concession of eight weeks parole.
“… the competent authority directed 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 besides complying with such other conditions as may be stipulated in the order releasing the petitioner on parole”, held the Court.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the plea and set aside the order.
Cause Title- Avdesh Kumar v. State of Punjab and others (Neutral Citation: 2023:PHHC:081458)
