Allowed

Alam Singh Alias Avtar v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Nov 2024CWP/11186/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed a writ petition and quashed the rejection of the petitioner's parole application. Finding the State failed to substantiate reported apprehensions of harm with material, especially given the petitioner's clean record during prior parole, the Court directed the authorities to release the petitioner on parole for 28 days. (summary length: 106 words)

What did the court decide?

The rejection of parole application dated 03.09.2024 is quashed. Respondents directed to reconsider and extend parole for 28 days with the order issued by 12.11.2024.

Alam Singh Alias Avtar Vs the State of Hp and Others — Bail and Remand | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

( 2024:HHC:10726-DB )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.11186 of 2024

¶4

Decided on : November 5, 2024

¶5

Alam Singh @ Avtar …..Petitioner (Lodged in Model Jail, Nahan District Sirmour, H.P.)

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of H.P. and others ….Respondents

¶8

Coram:

¶9

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate. For the respondents/ : Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General. State

¶11

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)

¶12

By way of this petition, petitioner has approached this Court for enlarging him on parole as his application for parole was rejected by the Competent Authority which was communicated to him vide communication dated 03.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) issued from the Director General, Prisons and Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh.

¶13

Petitioner has been convicted in case FIR No.40 of 2024 (Sessions Trial No.80 of 2014) under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., and he is undergoing rigorous imprisonment for life.

¶14

…2… ( 2024:HHC:10726-DB )

¶15

Admittedly, earlier, similar application preferred by the petitioner was also rejected by the concerned Authority due to adverse report of concerned District Authority. However petitioner, after intervention of this Court, was released on parole for a period of 28 days in furtherance to order dated 27.06.2023 passed in CWP No.2519 of 2023, titled as Alam Singh @ Avtar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others.

¶16

In response to the present petition, respondents have placed on record instructions dated 26.10.2024 alongwith custody certificate, reports of District Administration/Police and statements of Up-Pradhan and Ward Panch of Gram Panchayat as well as statements of victim party.

¶17

According to the information placed on record during inquiry conducted, before considering application for releasing the petitioner on parole, it has been reported by the Superintendent of Police, Mandi, H.P., that according to the statements made by the members of the victim family, petitioner is a person of quarrelsome nature and, if he is released on bail, he can potentially harm the victim’s family in future as he has also quarreled with victim’s family on earlier occasion.

¶18

Taking into consideration the non-recommending report of the concerned District Authority, petitioner’s case for parole has been rejected by the Competent Authority.

¶19

…3… ( 2024:HHC:10726-DB )

¶20

After filing of the aforesaid instructions respondents were granted time to place on record material to substantiate the plea of the District Authority with respect to apprehension of involvement of the petitioner in quarrel or harming the family of the victim as reported in the inquiry conducted before considering the claim of the petitioner to enlarge him on parole. Neither in the instructions or alongwith the same nor today, respondents have placed on record any material to substantiate the plea taken by the District Authority not to recommend case of the petitioner for releasing him on parole. Rather, a certificate issued by the Up-Pradhan and statement made by Ward Panch, placed on record with instructions, indicates that during previous parole period petitioner did not involve in any illegal activity, including any quarrel with victim’s family or any other person, and this fact has not been controverted by the respondents.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner for allowing the application, has placed reliance on the pronouncements of the Supreme Court as well as coordinate Benches of this High Court in Asfaq Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (2017) 15 SCC 55 ; judgment dated 16.10.2023 passed in CWP No. 5965 of 2023, titled as Retaish Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & others ; judgment dated 9.10.2023 in CWP No. 6562 of 2023, titled as Pushap Raj Vs. State of H.P. & others ; judgment dated 23.5.2023 passed in CWP No. 1710 of 2023 , titled as Bihari Lal Vs. State of H.P. &

¶22

…4… ( 2024:HHC:10726-DB )

¶23

others; judgment dated 23.7.2021 passed in CWP No. 3516 of 2021 , titled as Virender Kumar @ Bindu Vs. State of H.P. and others ; and judgment dated 20.05.2024 passed in CWP No.2640 of 2024 titled as Lucky vs. State of H.P. & others, and submitted that for similar circumstances petitioner is also entitled for release on parole and rejection of his application on the alleged apprehension of the State is not sustainable in absence of any material to substantiate the same, particularly when petitioner, at earlier point of time, while on parole, has not violated terms of his temporary release on parole.

¶24

Learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of instructions placed on record, has failed to point out any material to substantiate the plea for which parole application of the petitioner has been rejected, particularly in absence of any such incident while petitioner was on parole at previous occasion.

¶25

Taking into consideration entire material placed before us, we are of the considered opinion that petitioner cannot be denied parole on the ground which has been cited by the respondents for rejecting his application.

¶26

Accordingly, rejection communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated 03.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set aside with direction to the respondents-State to reconsider the case of the petitioner for extending benefit of parole to him for a period of 28 days specified in appropriate

¶27

…5… ( 2024:HHC:10726-DB )

¶28

order to be issued to the concerned Authority on or before 12.11.2024 to ensure enlargement of the petitioner on parole after completing all necessary formalities, including furnishing of bonds etc. immediately thereafter.

¶29

Needless to say that petitioner shall abide by the conditions imposed upon him by the concerned Authority, in accordance with law, and Rules applicable during the parole period, including to surrender before the Superintendent Jail concerned on expiry of parole period. Petitioner’s parole shall be liable to be cancelled in case of breach of any condition of parole order and/or on creating law and order problem which shall be treated as a negative factor for consideration of his similar prayers in the future.

¶30

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, so also pending application, if any.

¶31

Petitioner is permitted to produce a copy of this judgment downloaded from the Website of the High Court before the Authorities concerned and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy, but, if required, may verify passing of the order from the Website of the High Court or otherwise.

¶32

( Vivek Singh Thakur ) Judge.

¶33

(Rakesh Kainthla) November 5, 2024 Judge. (Purohit)

¶34

Digitally signed by MONIKA SOOD DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=09a754be1f9ae53b994894bc6597483238021dbde1da2f19bc81f42aeeae4 5c9, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=68c329e0dc13db432efa2962635912fb84af9556580e15591ff97 2d7dbfd3fc7, CN=MONIKA SOOD Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2024-11-06 16:46:03

¶35

MONIKA SOOD

Alam Singh Alias Avtar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alam Singh Alias Avtar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devinder Kumar Vs State of Hp

State Vs Pawan Kumar

The Hpsebl Vs Neel Kanth Dutta

Sanjay Kumar Vs State

Saroj Bala Vs Om Parkash

Kulbhushan @ Rinku Vs the State of Hp and Others