Disposed

Harchand Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2008CRM-M/25571/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that rejecting a parole plea after a prisoner was convicted for overshooting parole violates the principle against double jeopardy. Directions were issued for the competent authority to reconsider the plea with appropriate safeguards within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with direction to deportment authority to decide parole plea afresh within 15 days imposing appropriate riders.

Harchand Singh Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No.M-25571 of 2008

¶2

-1-

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

Criminal Misc. No.M-25571 of 2008 Date of decision : 12.12.2008

Harchand

. ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

Present: Mr.Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab

¶14

S. D. ANAND, J.

¶15

The parole plea of the petitioner-prisoner came to be declined by the competent authority on the premise that he had overshot parole by 388 days. Concededly, the petitioner-prisoner was prosecuted and convicted for that dereliction of law.

¶16

The plea presently raised by the petitioner is that the declining of his parole plea on the above premise (of his having overshot parole) subjects himself to double jeopardy.

¶17

Learned State counsel argues that, in view of the past conduct of the petitioner, there is every possibility that he may abscond, if released on parole.

¶18

I find myself in complete agreement with the advocated plea by the learned counsel for the petitioner that upholding the disallowance of the parole plea on the indicated premise would invite the charge of the petitioner having been vexed twice. The relevant rules provide that if a prisoner overshoots parole or commits any jail offence, consideration of his request for release on parole can be deferred by a year. It is also open to the competent authority to prosecute a prisoner of that category in a Court of law. In the present case, the petitioner-prisoner had been prosecuted and convicted on a charge of having overshot parole. In that view of things, the competent authority could not have declined consideration of

¶19

Criminal Misc. No.M-25571 of 2008

¶20

-2-

¶21

********

¶22

his parole plea on that very allegation.

¶23

Insofar as the apprehension indicated by the learned Counsel is concerned, it can be taken care of by the competent authority by imposing appropriate riders. It may be done by insisting that surety to be furnished would be adequately solvent and local in character. The authority charged with the responsibility of accepting the bonds could also consider retaining the title deeds of the property provided by the surety.

¶24

The petition shall stand disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the parole plea of the petitioner-prisoner afresh within a period of fifteen days from today in the light of the observations made by this Court. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the competent authority.

¶25

Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary.

¶26

December 11, 2008 Pka

¶27

(S.D. ANAND) JUDGE

Harchand Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harchand Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajinder Singh Vs Pb.St.

Vir Chand Goyal Vs Sr. Supdt. of Police, Kapurthala

Sher Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Naresh Chand Vs State of Haryana

Bhim Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Naresh Vs State of Haryana