In CRWP Nos. 181, 152, 162 and 3055 of 2022-PUNJ HC- Whole purpose of parole is to ensure that convict is able to interact with his family during his period of conviction: P&H HC Justices G.S. Sandhawalia & Vikas Suri [26-07-2022]

Read Order: Ram Krishan v. State of Punjab and others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, July 28, 2022: In a petition seeking quashing of the order of District Magistrate, Mandsaur rejecting the application of the accused-petitioner for grant of parole, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that the whole purpose for grant of parole is to ensure that the convict is able to interact with his family during his period of conviction.

The Division Bench of Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Vikas Suri took into consideration the fact that he had undergone 4 years, 2 months and 3 days of actual sentence and had also availed parole of 9 months and 10 days. 

The petitioners, who were confined in Central Jail, Faridkot, sought the quashing of three orders whereby their prayer for release on parole was impliedly rejected by the District Magistrate, Mandsaur by recommending against the release of the petitioners on parole. 

The conviction of the petitioners was for 14 years under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’), emanating from a 2014 FIR as handed out by the Court of Special Judge, Ferozepur.

The District Magistrate relied upon the report of the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and held that there was no positive recommendation for sanction of parole and, therefore, the benefit was denied.

The Court perused the custody certificate of the petitioner and observed that he underwent 4 years, 2 months and 3 days of actual sentence and during the course of this period, he had availed parole of 9 months and 10 days. 

After considering the above-stated, the Court opined that the whole purpose as such for grant of parole is to ensure that the convict is able to interact with his family during his period of conviction.

Keeping in view the principles envisaged in law, the Bench was of the considered opinion that the orders of the District Magistrate, Mandsaur were not justifiable and therefore, were accordingly quashed.”The petitioners shall be released on parole for a period of 6 weeks, on furnishing the requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of competent authority and shall surrender back in time in jail premises on the expiry of the said period after release”, held the Court, while allowing the petitions.