Allowed

Sachin Alias Mussa v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2024CRWP/8185/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A life convict serving over seven years in custody sought parole after his application was rejected on grounds of possible disturbance of public peace. The court found that ground baseless, noted a co-convict had been granted parole, and released him on four weeks' parole.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 25.06.2024 set aside; petitioner to be released on parole for 04 weeks on furnishing bail bonds, surrendering thereafter.

Sachin Alias Mussa Vs State of Haryana… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ******

¶2

206 CRWP-8185-2024 Date of Decision.:11.12.2024

¶3

Sachin @ Mussa …..Pe..oner Vs. State of Haryana and Others .….Respondents

¶4

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶5

Present:Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate for the pe��oner.

¶6

Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. AG, Haryana.

¶7

¶8

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶9

By way of this pe��on filed under Ar�cle 226 of the Cons�tu�on of India, pe��oner prays for se+ng aside order dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2, whereby parole applica�on of the pe��oner was declined.

¶10

The facts emana�ng from the record are that pe��oner was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in a case arising out of FIR No.1323 dated 08.12.2016 under Sec�ons 148, 149, 302, 307, 34, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereina�er to be referred to as ‘IPC’) vide judgment dated 6.7.2016 by the court of Ld. Addi�onal Sessions Judge, Karnal. Pe��oner challenged the said convic�on before this Court by filing CRA-D-724-2022, which is pending before this Court. Pe��oner applied for his release on parole by moving an applica�on before Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal but the same has been declined mainly on the ground that pe��oner was involved in many other criminal cases and that his release was likely to disturb public peace.

¶11

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.12.17 12:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶12

CRWP-8185-2024

¶13

-2-

¶14

Assailing the aforesaid order before this Court, it is contended by learned counsel that similarly placed co-convict Rituraj has already been granted the benefit of parole by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2024 passed in CRWP-1534-2024 by this Court. It is further contended that pe��oner is in custody for the last more than 07 years and 08 months and that the observa�on made by respondent No.2 that release of the pe��oner on parole could disturb the public peace, is based upon conjectures. Specific a>en�on is drawn towards the fact that as per the report sent by District Magistrate, Sonipat vide le>er dated 15.01.2024, there was no threat to the security of the State due to parole/furlough release of the pe��oner, though there was fear/possibility of danger of disturbances of public peace. Contending the impugned order to be unjus�fied, pe��oner prays to set it aside.

¶15

Opposing the pe��on, learned State counsel contends that a prisoner does not have a vested right to the grant of benefit of temporary release on parole. It is a concession by the state, which is given to a prisoner upon fulfilling certain condi�ons. Such privilege is granted by the State to convicted prisoners on certain specific grounds. Ld. State counsel has drawn a>en�on towards the reply filed by way of an affidavit of Shri Amit Kumar, Superintendent of Prison, District Prison, Karnal, jus�fying the refusal to release the pe��oner on parole and opposing the impugned order inasmuch as pe��oner is involved in various other criminal cases, due to which his release might disturb public peace.

¶16

We have considered submissions of both the sides and have perused the record.

¶17

The perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the only ground to decline the benefit of parole to the pe��oner is a fear/possibility

¶18

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.12.17 12:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRWP-8185-2024 -3-

¶20

of the disturbance of public peace, because of the criminal history of the pe��oner, although District Magistrate, Sonipat by way of his le>er dated 15.01.2024 reported that there was no threat to the State security with the pe��oner’s release, though there was possibility of disturbing public peace due to pe��oner being a habitual criminal with mul�ple criminal cases.

¶21

Perusal of the custody cer�ficate placed on record by learned State counsel would reveal that pe��oner is under-trial in two cases, one registered in July, 2018 in Police Sta�on Gannaur, Sonipat under Sec�on 307 IPC in FIR N: 345/2018 and other registered in Police Sta�on City, Sonipat bearing FIR No.408/2020 under Sec�on 323/34 IPC and Sec�on 45 of the Prisons Act. However, he is on bail in both these cases. He was also convicted in one case FIR No.545 dated 01.09.2015 under Sec�ons 148, 147, 323, 324, 427 and 406 IPC registered at Police Sta�on City Sonipat but has already been released on bail in that case way back in November, 2019. In four other cases, pe��oner has already been acqui>ed.

¶22

Custody cer�ficate further reveals that pe��oner has already undergone actual custody period of 07 years 08 months and 07 days. Coconvict Rituraj was granted the benefit of parole by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2024 in CRWP-1534-2024.

¶23

Simply because, respondent feels that there is a possibility/fear of danger of disturbance of public peace, without any basis and which reason appears to be based upon conjectures, the benefit of parole cannot be declined to a prisoner. As held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Asfaq vs. State of Rajasthan 2017 (15) SCC 55 , a humanis�c approach is to be adopted against those, who are lodged in jails. Pe��oner’s case is also covered by judgment passed by this court in CRWP N: 1324 of 2022 $tle Surinder Singh vs State of Haryana decided on 20.10.2022 .

¶24

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.12.17 12:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRWP-8185-2024

¶26

-4-

¶27

Having no�ced all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present pe��on is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure P-1) is set aside. Pe��oner is directed to be released on parole for a period of 04 weeks on his furnishing requisite bail bonds to the sa�sfac�on of the competent authority. The pe��oner shall surrender before jail authori�es on the expiry of the said period aEer his release. The said period of parole shall be counted from the date, when he is actually released from the jail.

¶28

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE

¶29

(DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE

¶30

December 11, 2024 Nee�ka Tuteja

¶31

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶32

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.12.17 12:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sachin Alias Mussa v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Alias Mussa v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudarshan Kumar Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Others

Mohan Lal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Yaman Yadav Vs State of Haryana and Others

Lila Dhar Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Ajit Singh Punia Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Rajesh Ahuja Vs State of Haryana and Anr.