Allowed

Sanjeev Kumar Yadav v. Ut Chandigarh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Apr 2024CRWP/3352/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the order denying parole to a convict sentenced under Section 376 IPC and the POCSO Act, finding the refusal based on unsubstantiated apprehension of re-offending lacked application of mind. The Court directed release on parole for 28 days subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on parole for 28 days subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds of Rs. One Lakh each.

Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs Ut Chandigarh and Others — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRWP No. 3352 of 2024

¶2

2024:PHHC:052439-DB

¶3

-1-

¶4

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶5

(102) CRWP No. 3352 of 2024 Date of Decision: 19.4.2024

Sanjeev Kumar Yadav

.....Petitioner

Versus

U.T., Chandigarh and others ....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA

¶11

Present: Ms. Shuchi Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Addl. P.P., for the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh. ****

¶13

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The present petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Judge, Fast Track Court, Chandigarh on 28.7.2022, to undergo imprisonment for 20 years, in case bearing FIR No. 214 of 16.12.2021, registered under Section 376 of the IPC, and, under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

¶15

The above made verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith sentence(s) (supra), as became imposed upon the convict, has been challenged by him through his rearing a criminal appeal bearing No. CRA-D-730 of 2022, before this Court.

¶16

During the pendency of the appeal (supra) before this Court, the convict preferred an application, claiming thereins the relief of his becoming released on parole, lasting upto a duration of 28 days, rather for the relevant purpose. The authority concerned, after eliciting the report of the police officer concerned, has made a declining order on the relevant application, and, the above declining order, which becomes enclosed in Annexure P-1 to the instant petition, has led the petitioner to access this Court.

¶17

A reading of the declining order (Annexure P-1) reveals, that there is an apprehension or every likelihood of the present petitioner re-indulging in criminal activities, thus upon his being released on parole. Gurpreet Singh 2024.04.20 13:00 However, the above purported apprehension, rather becoming engendered, I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CRWP No. 3352 of 2024

¶19

2024:PHHC:052439-DB

¶20

-2-

¶21

upon the petitioner becoming released on parole, is not founded upon any credible and tangible evidence. Therefore, since in the wake of the above, the declining order (supra) but is obviously made with a complete lack of application of mind, and/or is surmisely drawn, therefore, the same is required to be rejected.

¶22

Therefore, the petition is allowed, and, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for 28 days, from the prison concerned, but subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds in a sum of Rs. One Lakh each, and, to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Jail concerned, where he is extantly lodged, and, with an undertaking therein that immediately on expiry of the afore period, he shall re-step into the prison concerned. The stepping outside the prison of the convict-petitioner shall commence in the evening of 20.4.2024, and, shall last uptill the morning of 18.5.2024.

¶23

If the above condition is breached, and, the petitioner does not re-step into the prison concerned, immediately on the expiry of the above period, i.e. on 18.5.2024, thereupon, liberty is reserved to the jurisdictional SHO concerned, to forthwith arrest the petitioner, and, to thereafter produce him before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, for the latter making an order for the petitioner becoming committed to the prison concerned.

¶24

(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE

¶25

(LALIT BATRA) JUDGE

¶26

April 19, 2024 Gurpreet

¶27

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶28

Gurpreet Singh 2024.04.20 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Sanjeev Kumar Yadav v. Ut Chandigarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar Yadav v. Ut Chandigarh and Others

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

Naresh Godara Vs State of Haryana

Notified Ar Ea Committe Vs Addtional Director, Consolidat

Raghbir Singh and Ors. Vs Director Consolidation of Holding Haryana Chd. and Ors.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ram Ji Lal Vs Gram Panchayat Garhi Jattan &Ors

Budh Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others