SUFFICIENT MATERIAL AND SOLID REASONS REQUIRED FOR DECLINING PAROLE: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

The Punjab And Haryana High Court in the case Mahammad Shehbaz VERSUS State of Punjab and others observed while allowing a criminal writ petition challenging refusal of parole to the convict i.e., petitioner has held that release on parole is part of the reformative process.

The bench comprising of Justice G. S. Sandhawalia and Justice Vikas Suri observed and added further that the provisions of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 are a reformative measure for prisoner to perform family obligations and to have family association and rituals and there should be a sufficient reason available along with solid reasons for declining temporary release on parole.

In the present case, the court relied on the judgement of the case Arun Kumar vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh and others, wherein it was held that release of convict on parole is a way of reformative process and Ram Chander vs. State of Punjab and others, wherein it was held by the court that in the absence of any material and denial of parole would be unjustified.

In March 2020, the petitioner was convicted Under Section 302, Section 120-B and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has been in custody after the lodging of the FIR since April 2018. The petitioner sought 6 weeks parole to take care of his old and ailing parents. However, the permission was refused by the concerned Additional Deputy Commissioner.

While keeping in view the settled principles of law and the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for over 4 years. It was held by the court that the rejection cannot be justified in any manner.

The bench observed that the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur also is singular in its opinion that release of petitioner on six weeks parole in the city can disturb the law and order and endanger the country’s security. As such, nothing has been discussed in which circumstances the petitioner has been convicted, what was his crime and the manner in which he had committed the same to show that after 4 years of conviction, his release on parole would endangers the security of the Nation. Even the ground as such of his release has not been discussed whether his parents are genuinely unwell and aged and Further, it was stated that the impugned order suffers lack of application of mind.

The petition is allowed by court to be released on parole.