Elderly Prisoners Require Support To Manage Even Menial Tasks, Very Few States Provide Facilities For Them: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently observed that Prison Statistics India 2020, compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau, reveals that very few States provide special treatment or facilities for old age prisoners.

These observations were made while granting bail to a 76-year-old man accused in an NDPS case.

Justice Anoop Chitkara said that apart from the ground that there is no convincing evidence of the petitioner's dealings in the contraband recovered from the main accused, the elderly age of the accused also needs to be considered.

"'Age,' as a consideration, has always assumed significant importance in our Criminal Justice system. An older adult is stricken with degenerative physiological changes, cognitive decline, problems in dexterity and mobility, and is burdened with increased dependency. Such individuals, who belong to a higher age bracket, usually tend to require extra support and assistance, even to manage menial tasks of daily living, including but not limited to self-care," the Court observed.

Adding that even a minor health issue in late life has the potential to turn into a life-threatening catastrophe, the judge said that, "Prison systems, mostly everywhere, are riddled with certain prejudices and may be inept in dealing with such grave contingencies immediately ."

"The inherent stressors that plague our prison systems may negatively impact the quality of life and add unnecessary and substantial distress to both the physical and psychological well-being of an octogenarian," the Court said further.

"Though sentencing policies are based on deterrence and retribution, their ultimate objective is reformation to establish a healthy and civil society. All these goals fall short while dealing with a person already standing on his last legs, which is a harsh but ultimate truth and garners respect and compassion on these core humanitarian grounds," added the judge.

Sukhchain Singh, a 76 years old man was accused in an FIR under Sections 15, 22, 25, 29 of NDPS Act. It was alleged that contraband of commercial quantity was recovered from a vehicle which was driven by another accused. According to the prosecution the vehicle was registered in the name of the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that from the bare perusal of the FIR it becomes clear that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR, neither the petitioner has been apprehended at the spot, neither the petitioner was present at the spot, neither is the case that petitioner ran away from the spot and nothing has been recovered from the petitioner.

After hearing the submissions, the judge noted that the quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case.

As per Section 37, bail should not be granted to an accused unless the accused is able to satisfy twin conditions: reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that the accused would not commit an offence or is not likely to commit an offence if granted bail.

The Court highlighted that, the recovery was not from the petitioner but from the vehicle registered in the petitioner's name. "To satisfy the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act, it is not the prosecution's case that the petitioner was also traveling with the vehicle to escort the contraband or involved in it, and there is no convincing evidence of the petitioner's dealings in the contraband recovered from the main accused."

SO far as second rider of Second 37 is concerned, Court imposed stringent conditions in order to ensure that the petitioner does not repeat the offence.

Consequently, the plea was allowed.

Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasjit Singh, D.A.G., Punjab.

Title: Sukhchain Singh v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 246

Click here to read/download the order