'Oppressive & Harsh', Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Parole Condition To Furnish Surety Bond Of Rs. 2 Lakhs

Observing that it is "oppressive and harsh", the Punjab and Haryana High Court modified the parole condition to furnish personal bond of Rs. 2 lakhs along with two sureties.

While modifying the condition to personal and surety bond of Rs. 1 lakh, a division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Lalit Batra said, "the conditions are extremely harsh and oppressive, thereupon when they ultimately frustrate the purpose of the relief granted to the present petitioner, thereupon the very purpose of the said facility of parole, as, assigned to the prisoners, would but be completely snatched, and/or, therebys the temporary release of the prisoners from the prisons concerned, which is a holistic purpose behind the engraftment of the provisions embodied in the Act (The Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022)..."

The Court was hearing the plea of a convict in murder case, who was released on parole for a period 10 weeks under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022, wherein the authorities imposed a conditional under Section 11 of the Act to furnish a bond of Rs. 2 lakhs.

Section 11 of the Act states that, "Before any convicted prisoner is released on parole or furlough, he shall execute a bond amounting to minimum one lakh rupees extendable to three lakh rupees alongwith minimum two sureties to the satisfaction of the competent authority."

The counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the condition is unreasonable and frustrates the purpose of the relief of parole as he is not financially well equipped to fulfil the condition.

On the other hand the State counsel submitted that the petitioner had earlier complied with the same condition, therefore, the he is estopped from making any argument, that it is "extremely harsh and oppressive."

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that a per Section 11 of the Act, a discretion is vested upon the competent authority "to either insist, upon the petitioner to furnish personal and surety bonds comprised in a sum of Rs. 1 lakh each or to impose, upon him a condition qua his furnishing personal and surety bonds comprised in a sum of Rs. 3 lakh each."

Justice Sureshwar Thakur opined that the discretion given to authorities to impose "a bond amounting to minimum one lakh rupees extendable to three lakh rupees alongwith minimum two sureties," required to be "exercised with extreme caution."

The Court added that the financial condition of the convict and his sureties must also be considered while imposing such conditions.

It rejected the State counsel's argument that the petitioner will be estopped from pleading that the condition is harsh because he has earlier complied the same.

"(It) does not yet satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court, that therebys yet the competent authority became relieved of its dire duty, to make an insightful application of mind to the factum, that the statutory discretion (supra), which was to be so exercised by it, does become so exercised not in a capricious or whimsical manner...," the Court added.

The bench opined that to obviate the ill consequences, the imposed condition "cannot be sustained."

Consequently, it modified the condition to furnish personal and surety bonds of Rs. 2 lakh each along with two like sureties each, to the extent to furnish before the competent authority personal and surety bonds of Rs.1 lakh each.

Randeep S. Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with P.P.Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana and

Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 87

Title: JAGDISH @ KALU NATH v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Click here to read/download the order