Allowed

Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Aug 2010CRWP/1221/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought house repair parole under Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners Act, 1962. Competent authority rejected application fearing a repeat of N-NDPS convictions. Court held rejection lacked material basis on public order grounds and set aside the order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of rejection set aside; respondents directed to reconsider parole application within two weeks.

Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Criminal Writ Petition No.1221 of 2010

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Writ Petition No.1221 of 2010 Date of decision:- 20.8.2010

Baldev Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present:Mr. D.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG Punjab.

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral)

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(d) and 6 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be called as the `Act’) for release of petitioner on house repair parole for four weeks.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.

¶16

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is undergoing sentence in FIR No.103 dated 26.8.2006, under Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (hereinafter to be called as ' NDPS Act') registered at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, for a period of 10 years. Further contends that house of the petitioner is in depleted condition and the same requires urgent repair and there is nobody else in the house to get the house repaired and hence the petitioner has applied for four weeks parole for getting the house repaired.

¶17

Criminal Writ Petition No.1221 of 2010

¶18

-2-

¶19

Further contends that however his prayer has been declined by the competent authority vide order (Annexure P-2) on insufficient grounds. Further contends that ground for rejection cannot be said to be legal one as it has been mentioned that on account of sentence having been passed for 10 years, it is not desirable to release him on parole.

¶20

On the other hand it has been stated by learned counsel for the State that application of petitioner for release on parole has been declined by the competent authority on the report of District Magistrate, Kapurthala (Annexure R-1) on the ground that he was convicted and sentenced for 10 years imprisonment under NDPS Act and that he may indulge in the business of poppy husk again.

¶21

Section 3 of the Act provides for release of a convict on parole which reads as under:-

¶22

“3. Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds :- (1) The State Government may in consultation with the District Magistrate and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified in sub-section(2) any prisoner if the State Government is satisfied that:-

¶23

(a) a member of the prisoner's family had died or is seriously ill; or

¶24

(b) the marriage of the prisoner's son or daughter is to be celebrated; or

¶25

(c) the temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operation on his land and no friend of the prisoner or a member of the prisoner's family is prepared to help him in this behalf in his absence;

¶26

(d) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause.

¶27

Criminal Writ Petition No.1221 of 2010

¶28

-3-

¶29

(2) The period for which a prisoner may be released shall be determined by the State Government so as not to exceed-

¶30

(a) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub section (1), two weeks;

¶31

(b) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (b) or clause (d) of sub-section (1), four weeks; and

¶32

(c ) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (c ) of subSection (1), six weeks.

¶33

(2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2), where a prisoner undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment, is to be released on the ground specified in Clause (d) of sub-section (1); he may be released for a period of six months or less in parts, during the five years.

¶34

(3) The period of release under this Section shall not count towards the total period of the release of a prisoner.

¶35

(4) The State Government may by notification authorise any officer to exercise its power under this section in respect of all or any of the grounds specified therein.”

¶36

Petitioner has applied for his release on parole under Section 3(1)(d) of the said Act alongwith Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1963. Petitioner was entitled according to rules for release on parole and hence his case was initiated for release on parole by the Superintendent Jail, Kapurthala. However, his request has been declined as the same has not been recommended by the Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, Kapurthala on the ground that he has been convicted and

¶37

Criminal Writ Petition No.1221 of 2010

¶38

-4-

¶39

sentenced for 10 years rigorous imprisonment under the NDPS Act and that he may involve in the business of poppy husk again. However, the said report of the Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, Kapurthala is not based on any material whatsoever.

¶40

On the other hand petitioner has placed on record resolution of village Gram Panchayat (Annexure P-1) stating that the house of petitioner requires urgent repair as the same is in depleted condition and that there is no male member in the house to get the same repaired. It has also been mentioned in the resolution of Gram Panchayat that there is no likelihood of any breach of peace in case petitioner is released on parole. Sarpanch of the Village Gram Panchayat, Latianwal has also submitted his affidavit in this regard before this Court.

¶41

As per Section 6 of the Act, concession of release of a prisoner under the Act can be refused in case the concerned authorities is of the view that the release of such prisoner is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.

¶42

In this case there is no such material on the basis of which it can be said that release of petitioner on parole is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.

¶43

In view of these facts the ground of rejection of parole of the petitioner by the competent authority vide impugned order is not in accordance with the Act and the Rules. Hence, the same is hereby set aside.

¶44

The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the present petitioner for his release on parole in the light of the observations of this Court made above, as per the Act and the Rules and on usual undertaking to be furnished by the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶45

Disposed of accordingly.

¶46

Criminal Writ Petition No.1221 of 2010

¶47

-5-

¶48

August 20, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) vj JUDGE

Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldev 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charan Singh Vs Mohinder Kaur and Anr.

Gurdev Singh Vs Ram Pal Andors.

Roshni Devi etc. Vs Ram Kali etc.

Jasbir Kaur Vs Rupinder Kaur and Others

Balwant Singh @ Babbu Vs State of Punjab etc.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.