Criminal Misc. No.M-25571 of 2008 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-25571 of 2008
Date of decision : 12.12.2008
Harchand .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr.Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
S. D. ANAND, J.
The parole plea of the petitioner-prisoner came to be declined
by the competent authority on the premise that he had overshot parole by
388 days. Concededly, the petitioner-prisoner was prosecuted and
convicted for that dereliction of law.
The plea presently raised by the petitioner is that the declining
of his parole plea on the above premise (of his having overshot parole)
subjects himself to double jeopardy.
Learned State counsel argues that, in view of the past conduct
of the petitioner, there is every possibility that he may abscond, if released
on parole.
I find myself in complete agreement with the advocated plea
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that upholding the disallowance of
the parole plea on the indicated premise would invite the charge of the
petitioner having been vexed twice. The relevant rules provide that if a
prisoner overshoots parole or commits any jail offence, consideration of his
request for release on parole can be deferred by a year. It is also open to
the competent authority to prosecute a prisoner of that category in a Court
of law. In the present case, the petitioner-prisoner had been prosecuted
and convicted on a charge of having overshot parole. In that view of
things, the competent authority could not have declined consideration of
Criminal Misc. No.M-25571 of 2008 -2-
****
his parole plea on that very allegation.
Insofar as the apprehension indicated by the learned Counsel
is concerned, it can be taken care of by the competent authority by
imposing appropriate riders. It may be done by insisting that surety to be
furnished would be adequately solvent and local in character. The
authority charged with the responsibility of accepting the bonds could also
consider retaining the title deeds of the property provided by the surety.
The petition shall stand disposed of with a direction to the
competent authority to decide the parole plea of the petitioner-prisoner
afresh within a period of fifteen days from today in the light of the
observations made by this Court. It will be for the State counsel to
communicate the order to the competent authority.
Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under
the signatures of the Court Secretary.
December 11, 2008 (S.D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE