Criminal Misc. No.M-23670 of 2008 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-23670 of 2008
Date of decision : 22.10.2008
Kuldeep Singh alias Keepa .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr.H.S.Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab for the respondent.
S. D. ANAND, J.
The plea by the petitioner-prisoner for his release on parole
was declined by the competent authority. The grievance of the petitioner is
that the reasons for declining of the request for grant of parole are
inappropriate and vague in character.
The competent authority noticed in the impugned order that
secret and open enquiry had been made and it was found that “the convict
has got bad reputation in the village”. The further apprehension indicated
by the competent authority is that the petitioner-prisoner “can abscond and
cause breach of peace”, if allowed to be released on parole.
Learned counsel invites the attention of this Court to the
Panchayatnama (Annexure P/6), whereby a certification had been issued
by the Gram Panchayat, Kotli Sajawar, recommending the grant of parole
to the petitioner-prisoner and further certifying that his release would not
cause any breach of peace.
Criminal Misc. No.M-23670 of 2008 -2-
****
As would be apparent from a perusal of the impugned order,
the competent authority did not notice factual foundational premise upon
which the declining of request was based.
Though the grant of parole is not a right vested in a prisoner,
it also cannot be said that a parole plea can be declined on the basis of a
vague apprehension indicated by the competent authority. The principle of
transparency validates the view that the authority competent to consider
the request of a prisoner under incarceration must announce to the
applicant the reasons for disallowance thereof. The impugned order
deserves invalidation as it fails the test of being self-contained and
transparent.
The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. The impugned
order is set aside. The competent authority is directed to pass an order
afresh within one month from today in the light of the above 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.
October 22, 2008 (S.D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE