Parole A Privilege Granted By State To Prisoners, Can't Be Clipped For Vague Reasons: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Granting parole to a murder convict, the Punjab & Haryana High Court last week observed that parole is a privilege granted by the state to the prisoners, and the same cannot be clipped for vague reasons. 

The bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Archana Puri was hearing a plea filed by one Mohammad Sabir, a convict in murder and attempt to murder case seeking parole on the ground to meet his old age mother.

The matter in brief

The plea was filed before the Court praying for quashing/setting aside an order passed by the District Magistrate, Sangrur whereby the parole case of the petitioner had been rejected.

Challenging the order, the petitioner moved the Punjab & Haryana High Court further seeking grant of parole under the provisions of Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoner's (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, and amended Act, 2018, on the ground to meet his old aged mother.

In its reply, the State government submitted that the petitioner had applied for 8 weeks' parole, however, since the District Magistrate, Sangrur, did not recommend the case of the petitioner for parole, he can't be released on parole.

It was also brought to the notice of the Court the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur had reported that there may be a danger to the State Authority and breach of peace if the convicts (including the present petitioner) are released on parole. T

Court's observations

Referring to The Punjab Good Conduct Prisoner's (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, the Court observed that the name of the Act itself suggests that in order to earn temporary release, the prisoner has to maintain good conduct, during his stay in the prison and furthermore, he has to behave properly during the period of parole and also not disturb the social peace.'

Further, taking into account the report filed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, the Court observed that, nothing as such had been disclosed about the manner, in which each one of them posed threat to the State Authority or their release may result into the breach of peace.

"As such, the reasons so given by the State are quite vague," added the Court.

Lastly, regarding the conduct of the petitioner, the Court note thus:

"(He) has undergone a total sentence of 9 years 11 months and 13 days (including remission) and after conviction, he has undergone 4 years 1 month and 18 days in custody. There is nothing, as such, mentioned in the custody certificate about the petitioner have not maintained good conduct while his detention in jail, during the pendency of the trial, or during the post-conviction period. Further, nothing is coming on record about the petitioner to have misused the grant of parole, at any time."

With this, the instant petition, as such, was allowed and the petitioner was thereby ordered to be released on parole for a period of 6 weeks, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of releasing Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

Case title - Mohd. Sabir v. State of Punjab and others

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order