Allowed

Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Aug 2008CRM-M/19026/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a special leave petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. granting two weeks' temporary parole to Amarjit Kaur, hereby convict, to attend her daughter's marriage. This relief was granted due to the emergent nature of the event and the respondents' insensitive inaction on a prior application.

What did the court decide?

Parole for two weeks with heavy surety; surrender required on 18.8.2008.

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-19026 of 2008 Date of Decision: August 04, 2008

Satnam Singh

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

The State of Punjab & Another

¶7

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶8

. . .

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶10

PRESENT: - Mr. B.S. Kathuria, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Kamaldeep Singh Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

¶12

. . .

¶13

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

¶14

The petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking parole for two weeks to Amarjit Kaur wife of Ranjit Singh who is confined in Central Jail, Ludhiana in case FIR No.34 dated 4.1.2004 under Section 15 of the NDPS Act lodged with Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana.

¶15

Contention of the learned counsel is that marriage of the daughter of the convict namely Sukhdeep Kaur is scheduled to be solemnised on 5/6.8.2008. The presence of the convict who is the mother, would be necessary for performance of various rituals.

¶16

Crl. Misc. No.M-19026 of 2008 [2]

¶17

Invitation card has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. Panchayatnama issued by the Panchayat has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Earlier, Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-18399 of 2008 seeking parole was moved, however, the same was disposed of with direction that in case the application is filed for the said purpose, the respondents shall consider and dispose of the same within 8 days from the date of filing of the application. The respondents, however, did not accept the application so that the petitioner cannot make any grievance of abuse of the order passed by this Court.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondent State says that being sensitive to the emergent nature of the matter, he had spoken to the Superintendent, Women Jail. He was assured that a report would be taken from the concerned police station and information would be sent to the Advocate General’s Office after verifying the facts given out in the petition. No instructions however have been received.

¶19

Inaction on the part of the respondents speaks of their insensitive approach.

¶20

Having regard to the averments made in the petition and the fact that respondents have not done the needful there being a detailed order dated 30.7.2008, the petition is allowed.

¶21

The convict, Amarjit Kaur wife of Ranjit Singh would be released for two weeks’ parole on the presentation of the order passed by this Court under the signatures of the Court Secretary, however, subject

¶22

Crl. Misc. No.M-19026 of 2008 [3]

¶23

to heavy surety.

¶24

It is made clear that the above named convict shall surrender on 18.8.2008.

¶25

(AJAI LAMBA) August 04, 2008 JUDGE avin

Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karamjit Singh Vs Pb. State and Ors.

Narain Singh Vs Rupinder Kaur Kand Ors.

Hamir Singh Vs Teja Singh & Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sube Singh Vs State of Haryana

Javed Akhtar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.