Disposed

Parveen Kumar @ Fina Alais Gupta v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Dec 2008CRM-M/17416/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted temporary release on bail to a convict under the N.D.P.S. Act, pending the outcome of a Supreme Court petition challenging the denial of remission benefits. The order mandated surrender if remission was ultimately denied.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner temporarily released on bail subject to verification of sentence served and undertaking to surrender back if Supreme Court denies remission benefit.

Parveen Kumar @ Fina Alais Gupta Vs State of Punjab… — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No.M-17416 of 2008

¶2

-1-

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

Criminal Misc. No.M-17416 of 2008 Date of decision : 5.12.2008

¶6

Parveen Kumar @ Fina @ Gupta

¶7

. ....Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Punjab and others

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND

¶12

Present: Mr. S.S.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab

¶14

S. D. ANAND, J.

¶15

The facts in the present case and those in Criminal Misc. No.21210 of 2008 (Parveen Kumar @ Fina alias Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and others) disposed of by this Court vide order dated 4.11.2008 are akin inasmuch as in both the cases the benefit of remissions was denied to the petitioner on account of his being a convict under the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶16

A similar controversy came up before a Coordinate Bench (Satish Kumar Mittal, J.) of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 768 of 2005 (Ajaib Singh son of Jit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others). In that case the petitioner relied upon two judgments rendered by this Court in Ekka Ram Versus State of Punjab in Criminal Writ Petition No.839 of 2004 decided on 14.09.2005 and Baldev Singh Versus State of Punjab in Criminal Writ Petition No.79 of 2005 decided on 1.3.2005. It also noticed that the judgment rendered by this Court in Ekka Ram's case had been appealed against by filing SLP which was pending consideration before the

¶17

Criminal Misc. No.M-17416 of 2008

¶18

-2-

¶19

********

¶20

Apex Court. In the light of those facts, the Bench adjourned the case sinedie by passing the following order:-

¶21

“Keeping in view these facts, it is ordered that in the meanwhile, the petitioner be temporarily released, if he fulfills the following terms and conditions:-

¶22

i) Before releasing the petitioner, the concerned Superintendent of Jail will verify the period undergone by the convict and the remissions granted under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and that if after subtracting the period on parole, the convict has undergone the sentence awarded by the Court, he shall be released temporarily on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate during the pendency of Special Leave Petition filed by State of Punjab in the case of Ekka Ram {SLP (Crl.) No. 2496 of 2006} arising from the final judgement and order dated 14.9.2005 passed in Crl.W.P. No. 839 of 2004. The convict concerned will be granted the benefit of remission as per the circulars issued by the Government of Punjab under Article 161, after his conviction.

¶23

ii) The petitioner will remain on bail during the pendency of SLP No. 2496 of 2006 in Hon'ble Supreme Court. If as per the judgement of the Supreme Court, benefit of remissions under Article 161 is not granted, the convict will surrender back in jail for undergoing the unexpired period of sentence.

¶24

iii) At the time of release on bail, the petitioner will give an undertaking that he will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and will keep peace and will continue

¶25

Criminal Misc. No.M-17416 of 2008

¶26

-3-

¶27

¶28

informing the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned his residential address from time to time.”

¶29

In the light of the foregoing discussion, the present petition shall stand disposed of in terms of the law laiddown in Ajaib Singh's case

¶30

(Supra).

¶31