High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRWP/6867/2023disposed of

Mandep @ Motha v. State Of Haryana And Others

2024-01-23Mrs. Justice Lisa Gill,Mrs. Justice Amarjot Bhatti6 pages

!"#"$%

( $) * + ( ,

./ $

, .#

(% 01 (-& - 1- 11 01 (-& - (

# $ % & 22222 ( 3 & '

(

)*+

- % & $

0*010)0

3'(&

4 (&

(

00+0'5

6,4 1) '00'7 !

0 '038 , '5)0

9,: !

- # 8

4# - $

5*."#$5 $

$ )

* /5 $

0 !

'038 ,

000*3 !

'0 000*3 !

'0*'00 (&#

4 7+= 0

05010

'0*'00

& (&

( /

0*010)0

3' 7

/ /

4 5=' 0

'7''0

(

:(-! ,

=& % (

, (

3'(&

4 & "

&( &(/

&( 1

0'07 (&

! "

(> > 2

) % +

05010

< 4 7+= 0 (&

'0*'00

( (&

(

/ 3 "8. It is relevant to refer to Section 8 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 (for short, '2022 Act'), which reads as under:- "8. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no convicted prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act if, on the report of the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner of Police or the Superintendent of Police or otherwise, the State Government or the competent authority is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order or cause reasonable apprehension of breach of peace."

9. It has been held in a plethora of cases that temporary release of a prisoner on parole or furlough can be denied only if such release is likely to endanger security of State or maintenance of public order. For arriving at such satisfaction that danger to security of State or maintenance of public order is indeed present, there has to be sufficient material before the District Magistrate for consideration. In the present case, there are general allegations that petitioner may abscond or involve in other criminal case, if released on parole. However, no material has been adverted to in the reply or by learned State counsel during the course of arguments justifying such apprehension. Insofar as other cases against the petitioner are concerned, it is not denied that in almost all of them, petitioner has either been acquitted or has undergone the sentence. Furthermore, no provision of 2022 Act has been cited which can be a

' bar/impediment for release of the petitioner on parole.

10. In our considered opinion, reasons for declining parole to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case are unsustainable. The present case calls for reconsideration of the matter by the competent authority in accordance with law and parameters as laid down for grant of parole." 5 <

0*010)0 (&#

( >

/ /

: &, (

(

( (

(

(&#

% & $

0 <

/ /

05010

<4 7+= 0(&

0*010)0

"& / !

(

$ /

- /

/ 6,

(

( .

: &

(&!

# @

;

'0 #

;

'7''0

0=& '0

'0& '' Division Bench of this Court in Arun Kumar vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh and others, 2011 (2) AICLR 361 held that release of convict on parole is a part of reformative process. Provisions of the Act have been enacted as a reformative measure with an object to enable the prisoner to have family association or to perform certain family obligations and rituals. Sufficient material should be available and there should be solid reasons for declining temporary release on parole. Similarly, in Ram Chander vs. State of Punjab and others, 2017 (3) RCR (Crl.) 340, it was held that in the absence of any material before the District Magistrate, denial of benefit of parole for meeting the family members as such would not be justified.

' A

! (

& / !

(

4 (

(

' -

3' (& #

;

'7 -

0*010)0(&#

;

(

/ . . & (

(

(" > 2

9( :

91- 11:

< "

B*4

( B*4