Court quashes police order, grants life convict 10-week freedom on parole

Noting that the petitioner had never misused any concession of temporary release or violated any condition imposed upon him earlier, Justice Manisha Batra allowed his parole plea.

Parole denied 

• The petitioner is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life, convicted under relevant sections of the IPC and the Arms Act.
• His appeal against conviction was dismissed, and presently he is confined in the District Jail, Karnal. 
• The petitioner submitted an application seeking regular parole through jail authorities to enable him to attend to family obligations and agricultural requirements at home.
• The superintendent, District Jail, Karnal, processed and forwarded the case with a recommendation for the grant of parole under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022. 
• However, on receipt of adverse inputs from the district authorities and local police expressing apprehension of breach of peace and possibility of absconding, the respondent rejected the prayer through an order dated December 5, 2024.

Parole, yes or no

• Advocate Randeep S Dhull for the petitioner submitted that the order had been passed mechanically without proper consideration of the petitioner’s conduct inside jail and without recording any tangible material to support the apprehension of breach of peace. 
• It was argued that the petitioner had already undergone substantial incarceration, had maintained satisfactory conduct in jail, and there was no allegation of misuse of the concession of temporary release. 
• Dhull submitted that the object of parole is reformative and rehabilitative in nature and is intended to enable a convict to maintain family and social ties.
• On behalf of his client, Dhull further argued that mere apprehension expressed by the police could not, by itself, constitute a valid ground for denial of parole in the absence of concrete material showing a threat to public order or security of the State. 
• Submitting that the petitioner was seeking parole only for a limited duration of ten weeks for attending family responsibilities and restoration of social ties, Dhull urged that his petition should be allowed.
• Opposing the petition, Additional Advocate General Neeraj Poswal submitted that there was no infirmity or illegality in the order, and the petitioner was a habitual offender, involved in several other cases. 
• He argued that there existed apprehension that release of the petitioner on parole may lead to breach of peace; therefore, he urged that the petition was liable to be dismissed. 

‘No past misuse of temporary release’

The Punjab and Haryana High Court noted that there was no specific material, antecedent during imprisonment, past misuse of temporary release or any concrete instance that had been referred to in apprehension made by the authorities while dismissing the petitioner’s plea.

The court observed that the superintendent, District Jail, Karnal, had processed and forwarded the case with a recommendation for the grant of parole after recording satisfaction regarding eligibility under the Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022. 

The competent authority should apply its mind to the conduct of the prisoner, the surrounding circumstances and statutory requirements instead of proceeding solely on generalised police inputs, the court said.

The court said that the petitioner was seeking regular parole for a limited duration for restoration of social ties and attending family obligations. 

Noting that the record does not indicate that release of the petitioner would endanger the security of the state or adversely affect the maintenance of public order in the manner contemplated under the governing statute, the court allowed his release.