Salahudin vs Union Territory on 22 October, 2008

Criminal Misc. No.M-23397 of 2008                             -1-

                                      ****


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

                        Criminal Misc. No.M-23397 of 2008
                        Date of decision : 22.10.2008

Salahudin                                               .....Petitioner

                        Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh and others                  ...Respondents

                               ****

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND


Present:    Ms.Savita Saxena, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. D.D.Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.


S. D. ANAND, J.

The parole plea of the petitioner-prisoner, a convict in case

FIR No. 30 dated 19.2.2001 under Sections 302, 307, 398, 449/34 IPC and

lodged in Model Jail, Chandigarh, was declined by the competent authority

( respondent no.2) vide order dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure A-2) by

recording that “the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur (Bihar) has not

recommended for the release of convict Salabudin s/o Nizamudin on

parole on plea that the situation may be worsened if the convict is

released on parole.”

The impugned order does not, at all, indicate what actually

persuaded the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, to observe that the situation

would worsen due to the release of the petitioner-prisoner on parole.

Though a prisoner cannot claim release on parole as of right,

there can equally be no dispute with the proposition that the competent
Criminal Misc. No.M-23397 of 2008 -2-

****

authority must record reasons for declining a request. Then only can it be

said that the order of the competent authority would be in accord with the

principle of transparency and fair play because the cause for declining

shall be announced to the petitioner-prisoner. The impugned order fails

that test.

At the time of arguments before this Court, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the U.T., Chandigarh resists the plea by arguing

that no medical certification in support of the averment (to the effect that

the mother of the petitioner is aged 85 years and is ailing) had been filed

by the petitioner-prisoner.

In the face of the averment, learned counsel for the petitioner,

argues that the mother of the petitioner being a resident of a remote area

in Bihar, no qualified medical practitioner is available over there. However,

learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection if the respondent-U.T.,

Chandigarh ascertains the correctness of the averment at its own level. By

the very nature of things, the State has fabulous infrastructural facilities at

its disposal for ascertainment of such like facts.

The petition shall stand disposed of accordingly with the

following directions:-

a) The respondent-U.T., Chandigarh shall ascertain the

correctness or otherwise of the averment made by the

petitioner;

b) If the averment regarding the health and age status of the

mother of the petitioner is found to be correct, the petitioner

shall be released on parole. If the averment is found to be

factually incorrect, the competent authority may pass an order

to the contrary.

Criminal Misc. No.M-23397 of 2008 -3-

****

c) The exercise shall be concluded within one from from today.

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