Mere Apprehension Of Accused Indulging In Sale Of Contraband Is No Ground To Reject Application For Parole: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the application for release on parole cannot be rejected on the mere apprehension that the accused may indulge in the sale of contraband or cause a breach of peace.

“Mere apprehension of the petitioner indulging in sale of contraband or of causing breach of peace would not bring the case within the ambit of Section 6(2) of the Act (the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962) so as to enable the competent authority to reject the application for temporary release on parole,” said the division bench of Justice B.S. Walia and Justice Lalit Batra.

The court was hearing a plea challenging the rejection of application under u/s 6 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962.The application of the petitioner for release on eight weeks parole was rejected on the ground that if the petitioner is released on parole, he can indulge in activities of selling drugs which can give bad affect to the young generation besides on account of apprehension of breach of peace.

The petitioner was convicted under Section 22, NDPS Act in 2019 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fourteen years and was asked to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000. In 2021, the petitioner applied for eight weeks parole along with panchayatnama in terms of Section 3 (1) (d) of the Act, to meet his family members and to look after his household affairs.

However his application was rejected on the grounds that he may indulge in the sale of contraband or cause breach of peace.

The Court noted that the only ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioner was that “if he is released on parole he can indulge in activities of selling drugs which can give bad effect to the young generation besides there is apprehension of breach of peace.”

No doubt a convict does not have an unfettered right to be released on parole and the same can only be on the grounds and subject to fulfillment of conditions mentioned in the Act, said the court.

However, the claim of the petitioner for temporary release could have been rejected on either of the two grounds enumerated u/s 6 (2) of the Act namely on satisfaction recorded by the competent authority that “release of the convict was likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order.”

The court said the grounds on which petitioner’s application was rejected “is unsustainable and can be routinely pressed into action for defeating the statutory objective to temporarily release a convict in terms of the provisions of the Act.”

“Accordingly, in view of the fact that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for temporary release does not fall within the ambit of either of the twin grounds stipulated in Section 6 (2) of the Act besides is based on mere conjectures and surmises without there being any material to arrive on said satisfaction, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is legally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside and the petitioner held entitled to concession of eight weeks parole,” the court opined

Consequently, the Court set aside the order of rejection and directed the competent authority to “pass necessary orders within two weeks for temporary release of the petitioner on parole for eight weeks subject to his furnishing necessary surety to the satisfaction of the competent authority and undertaking to maintain peace and good behavior during the period of parole and also to surrender in Jail after expiry of such period besides complying with such other conditions as may be stipulated in the order releasing the petitioner on parole.”

Case Title: Avdesh Kumar v.State of Punjab and others

Appearance: Bhupinder Pal Kaur Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Gurpreet Singh Sandhu, DAG, Punjab.

Click Here To Read/Download Order