Prisoners Not Disentitled To Parole For Merely Possessing Phones In Prison, State Should Provide Calling Facility In Jails: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that merely finding mobile phones in possession of prisoners would not be sufficient without cogent evidence to deny parole and the same is "extremely harsh and oppressive."

The larger bench opined that denying parole on "mere possession" of the mobile phones will be violation of fair trial as the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

A five-judge bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Justice Deepak SIbal, Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal, Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta and Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj said, "...principle of fair trial, quartered within the domain of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the said constitutional norm, but cannot be breached, even in respect of a prisoner, who, during the term of his becoming inmated in the prison concerned, thus unauthorizedly possesses a mobile phone, whereupon, he is led to, in terms of the declaration of law, rather forfeit his espousal for his application of parole being allowed."

The larger bench was constituted to decide a set of ten questions. The main question in the case was, "whether without any conviction becoming handed over by the regular Court concerned, the mere detection of unauthorized possession of a mobile phone from the prisoner concerned, does disentitle him to seek the privilege of parole, especially when even in heinous offence, subject to imposition of certain exacting conditions, the regular Courts of competent jurisdiction can grant bail to the accused concerned."

Speaking for the bench Justice Thakur held that denying the privilege of parole to inmates who were found in possession of mobile phones is "unreasonable classification" and "arbitrary".

Violation Of Fair Trial

"The salient norm for a fair trial is not only qua an accused being presumed to be innocent, till he becomes convicted by the court of competent jurisdiction, but also extends to, upon a charge becoming framed against an accused, thereupon, his being required to be asked to either plead guilty to the charge, or, being asked to plead not guilty to the charge, so that in the latter event, the trial against him lawfully commences," the bench added.

The Court elucidated that denial of parole only on mere possession of mobile phones "without the imperative evidence" are "antithetical to the norms of fair trial."

Calling Facility Should Be Provided To Inmates On Payment Of Charges

The Court further said that to curb the illegal activity of possessing mobile phones inside prisons the State should provide calling facility to the inmates so that they can communicate with their family and friends on payment of relevant charges.

"...the said endowment would ensue, in case directions are passed upon the Home Secretaries respectively of the State of Haryana, and, also of the State of Punjab, to forthwith install STD facilities in the jails concerned, so that therebys the inmated prisoners can communicate with their friends and relatives, but, on payment of relevant charges," added the bench.

Authorities Are Directed To Decide Parole Plea Objectively

Justice Thakur highlighted that the concerned authorities reject parole application by giving "stereotyped reasons" which are "not well-informed".

"Consequently, the District Magistrates/competent authority concerned are directed to hereinafter ensure that, they shall consider and apply their mind objectively to the relevant material furnished by the police, local Panchayats and only in cases where they receive cogent, tangible and concrete evidence indicating that the inmated prisoner, if released on parole, would be an imminent threat to the security and peace of the area concerned, thus thereupon they may well consider to, on good reasons, reject his/her application for parole," added the Court.

Authority Rejecting Parole In Mechanical Manner Will Be Liable For Disciplinary Action

The bench concluded that parole should not be denied in a mechanical manner, without application of mind.

"In the event of the competent authorities not objectively applying their mind vis-a-vis cases for release of prisoners on parole, thereupon they would be liable for censure/disciplinary action for theirs prompting frivolous and avoidable litigation," it said.

The reference plea was consequently disposed of.

Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

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

Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana

Mr. Karan Jindal, Asstt. A.G., Haryana

Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate Mr. Sakal Sikri, Advocate

Mr. Siddharth Arora, Advocate Ms. Saanvi Singla, Advocate and Ms. Naina Jindal, Advocate.

Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Addl. A.G., Punjab with Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab and

Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Advocate.

Title: Achan Kumar v. State Of Punjab & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 232

Click here to read/download the order