Extension Of Parole Can't Be Sought From High Court U/S 482 CrPC: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a prisoner/convict cannot be granted extension of parole while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.'). A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur also suggested that such cases can be entertained under the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a prisoner/convict cannot be granted extension of parole while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.'). A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur also suggested that such cases can be entertained under the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In the instant case, a petition was filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., seeking extension of parole granted to the petitioner on medical grounds. The Court pointed out that grant of parole to a convict/prisoner is governed by provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 and Rules framed thereunder. Thus, it observed,
"Omission or commission on the part of concerned authority in granting or rejecting the claim of a prisoner under H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1968 is an administrative action, but not an action governed by provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure or any other Criminal Law and therefore, I am of considered opinion that in such a case, instead of filing petition under Section 482 Cr.PC, a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India shall be maintainable."
After getting such suggestion from the Court, Mr. Vinod Kumar, counsel appearing for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition, seeking liberty to file appropriate petition under Article 226. He made a further prayer that till filing of Civil Writ Petition, petitioner may not be subjected to any action by concerned Authorities for not surrendering before concerned Jail Superintendent after expiry of his parole period as he is suffering from serious ailment and is not able to move out from his house.
Taking into consideration the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate fresh petition. The Court directed, in case the petition is preferred within a reasonable period and taking into account the peculiar condition of health of the petitioner, as placed on record, respondent Authority will not take any coercive action till 15th July, 2022.
Case Title: Mohd. Margoob (In Jail) v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 470 of 2022
Order Dated: 21st June 2022
Coram: Justice Vivek Singh Thakur
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Hemant Vaid, Additional Advocate General
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (HP) 13