IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
---
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 48352-M of 2007
Date of decision: 22.7.2008
Kulwant Singh --- Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others --- Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
---
PRESENT: Mr. A.S. Trikha, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Assistant Advocate
General, Punjab
---
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for quashing of order dated 3.9.2007, Annexure P-1, whereby
the prayer of the petitioner for his temporary release on parole has been
rejected by the District Magistrate, Tarn Taran. The petitioner has, thus,
prayed for his release on parole for a period of four weeks under Section
3(1) (d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act,
1962 to enable him to meet his family members.
In response to notice of motion, reply was filed on behalf of
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 wherein it has been stated that since the District
Magistrate, Tarn Taran has not recommended the case of the petitioner,
his case for grant of parole was rejected.
Criminal Misc. No. 48352-M of 2007 Pa
ge
nu
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
State counsel and perused the record. The respondents have attached
the order of rejection of the parole case of the petitioner, with the reply
as Annexure R-1. A reading thereof shows that the petitioner’s prayer
was declined on the basis of a report of the Superintendent of Police to
the effect that there was an apprehension of breach of peace in case the
petitioner was released on parole. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court in Mohinder Singh Versus
State of Haryana, 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 239 and contended that such
a ground for rejection of parole is not available under the Act.
On a consideration of the submission of the learned counsel
and in the light of the observations made in the reported case, I am of
the view that the case of the petitioner could not have been rejected
merely on the ground that there was an apprehension of breach of
peace,. While concurring with the view taken in the reported case, it is
held that the order, Annexure P-1 of rejection of prayer of the petitioner,
cannot be legally sustained and consequently, the same is liable to be
quashed. Learned State counsel could not bring to the notice of this
court any material or law that may support the impugned order.
In view of the above, the petition is accepted and the order
Annexure P-1 is quashed. Consequently, the respondents-authorities are
directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for his temporary
release on parole, in the light of the observations aforesaid and in
accordance with law. The exercise for re-consideration shall be
completed by the respondents, within four weeks of the receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
Criminal Misc. No. 48352-M of 2007 Pa
ge
nu
July 22, 2008 JUDGE
*RKMALIK*