Gurmail Kaur @Melo v. State Of Punjab And Others



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.01.2021 Gurmail Kaur @ Melo

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents



   

 


 


 


  


  

 


   

  






 
 



!"#
#
$ #


 


   
  "

% "
  "


 
"
 
 "





 


  &

 "
$
  
 
"

 " ''(


  






$






   

 

" 

  

 "



 
$


"




"


 






 "
 

 "# ) 
 "


  


 


 
 



 
 
'* +, '+,
 #

"  % 
 "
  
  "



-.!
/ '0
 
1+ '

'+(
 
'
/2
 
 

"
 
) 


2 

'   "



  
$ 
 

 


 





# 

3
 
$ 

 

 

  


 "
 
/ !1'4+ '+,


 


 


  

2 
 


"




5

+1 + '+'+
.

    

 "


  
 
"


 




 
-.!


 
 


.
 

   

" 
 "
"


 
+6 + '+'+
 
3

CRWP No.2156 of 2019, titled as 'Jeet Singh vs. State of Punjab and others'.


  

" 
 
 "


 #
  


  



 



 #
 

  
 

  


" 

 "

 " #
 
 
 
"


 "
  
 

 "


.
 
 

" 
 "


   &
 #
" 




 
 
#




 

7& #8
!" 
  ,('
7  



9,('
 :8
&
"#




 " 




"


$

 
(


,('
 
$
  
 "[6. Cases where consultation with District Magistrate not necessary or where prisoners are not to be released. -Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 3 and 4,-- (i) it shall not be necessary to consult the District Magistrate where the State Government is satisfied that the prisoner maintained good conduct during the period of his earlier release under any of the aforesaid sections; and (ii) no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act, if on the report of the District Magistrate, where consultation with him is necessary, the State Government

1 or an officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order".

 
(

,('
 
 


 

2
3


 

Jassa Singh @ Jassa Vs. State of Punjab 2016(5) RCR (Criminal) 522
 
 



2 3
"

"7. In terms of the above Section 6 (ii) of the Act, a prisoner is not entitled to be released under the Act, if on the report of the District Magistrate, where consultation with him is necessary the State Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order. Temporary release of a prisoner on parole or furlough as the case may be can be denied if his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.

For reaching satisfaction of danger to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order there has to be material before the District Magistrate, for consideration as to whether the release of a prisoner would be a threat to either or both of them. Parole cannot be denied and in fact is not liable to be denied on mere generalization by recording that generally it has been seen that prisoners on release generally engage themselves in smuggling activities causing danger to security of the country and contraband are again recovered from them. This can be ensured by asking the petitioner/prisoner to execute necessary bonds that while on parole he would maintain good behaviour and will not indulge in any smuggling activities, besides, asking him to furnish heavy surety."

0  
2
3


 

Ram Chander Vs.

State of Punjab and others 2017(3) RCR (Criminal) 340, "

 ""

 


$"

 "
$ "



   

"
 #
" 

 "


""
  











   #


 

   



"


.





 
"

$



  

 
 
 
5 
&

 



$

  


  

"
 


 

&
  
 

" 

 "
 "
/





 
  

 
 

  
#

""

 "

"



$"

 "





 


 "





  #


 


   



"


"

 
3


 
 CWP No.19340 of 2019, titled as 'Manjit Singh @ Laddu Vs. State of Punjab and others', decided on 02.09.2019.

"#









 "
 



&
  
 
 

 "


"


 
"


 







"
 

 "#
.
 

 "



  
 "


  #
 
+* + '+'+ 75 
08

&
 

#

  


" 
 "
$""
 ""
$ 



9 


:


 ;


 
  

;






 

  
 


" 

 "




 
$


 


* 
" 


   


2 

  

$
   
 


 
 

 
;




% "

"
$ 



 




  

"

 



 "




$ 


 #
"  
 "


  2
 29.01.2021    

 
    < 
 = >
?=/ < 


">
?=/