Allowed

Khillu v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Dec 2008CRM-M/32537/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This lacuna was regarding the disallowance of a prisoner's parole plea. The Court held that declining parole based on vague apprehensions violates the principle of transparency. The impugned order was set aside, and the authority was directed to pass a fresh order afresh within one month with adequate reasons.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order declining the parole plea was set aside. The competent authority was directed to pass an order afresh within one month with adequate reasons.

Khillu Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No.M-32537 of 2008

¶2

-1-

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

Criminal Misc. No.M-32537 of 2008 Date of decision : 10.12.2008

Khillu

. ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

Present: Mr.Surya Kant Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

S. D. ANAND, J.

¶14

Notice of motion.

¶15

On the asking of the Court, Mr.S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶16

The petitioner had initially filed Criminal Misc.M- 24326 of 2008, which was disposed of by this Court on 18.9.2008 with a direction to the competent authority to take a decision on the pending praole plea of the petitioner-prisoner within fifteen days from the date of order. The competent authority declined the parole plea of the petitioner on the basis of report from the District Magistrate concerned that “there is apprehension of adverse effect on the statute/arrangement of law and order”.

¶17

Though the grant of parole is not a right vested in a prisoner, it also cannot be said that a parole plea can be declined on the basis of a vague apprehension indicated by the District Magistrate. The principle of transparency validates the view that the authority competent to consider the request of a prisoner under incarceration must announce to the

¶18

Criminal Misc. No.M-32537 of 2008

¶19

-2-

¶20

********

¶21

applicant the reasons for disallowance thereof. The impugned order deserves invalidation as it fails the test of being self-contained and transparent.

¶22

The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. 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.

¶23

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

¶24

December 10, 2008 Pka

¶25

(S.D. ANAND) JUDGE

Khillu v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khillu v. State of Haryana & 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

Raj and Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Guru Nanak Darbar Kar Sewa Vs Punjab Wakf Board and Ors.

Babbi Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rajinder Singh Vs Pb.St.

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

Sher Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.