Unless some arbitrariness/malafide is apparent in order of Authority, evaluating circumstances seeking parole, only then, Court should intervene under Article 226:P&H HC

Read Order: Amrender Singh v. State of Haryana and others 

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, October 29, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has noted that it is the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned to evaluate the circumstances seeking parole. 

The Division Bench of Justice Jaswant Singh and Justice Sant Parkash opined that unless and until some arbitrariness or malafide is apparent in the order of the said authority, only then, this Court should intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Petition, in consideration, had been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Karnal Division(third respondent) whereby the case of the petitioner seeking parole had been rejected.

From the petitioner’s side it was contended that the petitioner had applied for parole for the purpose of repair of his house as per the provisions of Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 , but the Commissioner had wrongly rejected the parole of the petitioner with considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

The State counsel strongly opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of instant petition.

The Division Bench noticed that the petitioner is undergoing 14 years imprisonment for having committed offences punishable under Sections 15-61-85 of the NDPS Act. During his incarceration in jail, he had sought temporary release in terms of Section 3(1) (d) of the Act.

It was noticed that in terms of Section 3(2)(b) of the Act where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (b) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) the period for which a prisoner may be released shall be determined by the State Government so as not to exceed four weeks. Section 6 of the Act provides that consultation with District Magistrate is not necessary where prisoners are not to be released. 

In view of the aforesaid provisions of law, the Court added that while considering the request of the petitioner for grant of parole, discretion has been bestowed upon the concerned Officer/State Government.The release on parole of a convict cannot be claimed as a matter of right as the legislature has used the word may not shall.

From the perusal of the case file, it was  revealed that the petitioner had been undergoing 14 years imprisonment for having committed offences punishable under Sections 15-61-85 of the NDPS Act. The case of the petitioner had been rejected on the basis of reports submitted by the District Magistrate, Patiala and Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, apprehending breach of and maintenance of public order. 

The Bench was also of the view that the ground taken in the petition i.e. to repair of house did not appeal to logic at all and could not be said to be justifiable ground for granting the concession of parole to the accused, when other family members including father (50 years), mother (45 years) and wife (24 years) have been available, as per reply submitted by the respondent-State. 

The petitioner committed a heinous crime and if such type of convict is enlarged on parole, there is every possibility that he can misuse the concession of parole, explained the Bench.

It is the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned to evaluate the circumstances seeking parole. Unless and until some arbitrariness or malafide is apparent in the order of the said authority, only then, this Court should intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, observed the Bench.

Thus, the Bench dismissed the Petition, without finding any reason to interfere in the matter as the same had been considered after taking into consideration all the facts collected for considering the request of the petitioner for releasing him on parole.