LE Correspondent

Chandigarh, July 12, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted one month parole to a convict, undergoing life sentence for murder, to enable him to get married.

“In view of the settled statutory provisions and judicial precedents, parole could not be denied to the petitioner on the ground of apprehension that some unpleasant incident may occur or that the petitioner may commit some crime after his release on parole,” observed Judge Arun Kumar Tyagi.

The petitioner was convicted in a case registered on September 4, 2007 Sections 120-B and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Loharu Police Station, in Haryana’s Bhiwani district, and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on October 1, 2010.

The petitioner has already completed 12 years of imprisonment and availed parole and furlough several times and he never misused the same, the Bench noted. 

During the period of his parole granted in August 2020, the convict was engaged and his marriage was scheduled to be held in July this year. He submitted his application for temporary release on parole to enable him to perform marriage but the Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak declined to entertain his application on the ground of there being apprehension of disturbance of peace in the village and commission of crime by him if he is released on parole.

Justifying the decision of the Rohtak Jail Superintendent, the State Counsel argued that benefit of the parole/furlough is only a concession for good conduct of a prisoner which is granted by the State Government with the consultation of the concerned District Magistrate and no prisoner can claim it as a matter of right.

Parole was declined to the convict on March 18, 2021.

Admitting the petitioner’s plea, the Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi cited section 3 of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, which provides for temporary release of prisoners for marriage of prisoner himself, his son, daughter, grandson, grand-daughter, brother, sister, sister’s son or daughter is to be celebrated.

The Bench also cited Section 6(1) of the said 1988 Act to reach home a point that the state authorities must “furnish a valid ground for rejection of the application of a prisoner for grant of parole has to be based on some cogent supportive material and mere reproduction of the language of the statute or expression of any general or vague apprehension of possibility of occurrence of any unpleasant incident would not be sufficient to decline parole”. 

In case the petitioner commits any offence during the period of his temporary release on parole, his parole and release order shall stand immediately cancelled, the HC held. 

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment