Quashed
Sukhchain Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.
Punjab & Haryana HCCRM-M/17362/2008
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB…
What the court decided
AI extract
of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Misc. No.M-17362 of 2008
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-17362 of 2008 Date of decision : 4.12.2008
Sukhchain Singh
. ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: None for the petitioner
Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate Genera, Punjab.
S. D. ANAND, J.
The parole plea of the petitioner came to be declined vide impugned order dated 15.2.2008 (Annexure R-1) on the premise that he had absconded for one year one month and ten days and that he was rearrested by the local police thereafter. The period of his absence from the law had not been indicated. Mentioning of that period was relevant in view of the fact that the competent authority is entitled to decline the parole plea of the petitioner-prisoner for a period of one year with effect from such like dereliction.
Apart therefrom, the averment made by the learned State counsel that the petitioner-prisoner had thereafter committed a jail offrence does not find mention in the impugned order. She otherwise concedes that the jail authorities opted not to prosecute him for that offence and only imposed a penalty of interview denial for a period of one month to him. Thus, the using of that premise for denial of parole to him would amount to subjecting him to double jeopardy.
Criminal Misc. No.M-17362 of 2008
-2-
********
Though the grant of parole is not a right vested in a prisoner, the principle of transparency validates the view that the authority competent to consider the request of a prisoner under incarceration must announce to the applicant the reasons for disallowance thereof. The impugned order deserves invalidation as it fails the test of being selfcontained and transparent.
In the light of the fore-going discussion, the impugned order is set aside. The competent authority is directed to pass an order afresh within one month from today in the light of the above observations made by this Court. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the competent authority.
Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary.
December 04, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order declining parole was invalid for lack of transparency and being non-self-contained.
Whether declaring an unspecific absence period as reason for denying parole was legally sustainable.
Sukhchain Singh
State of Punjab
another
S. D. Anand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court