The High Court
Case Details
CRWP-6130 6130-2025 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA DIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA 110 CRWP-6130-2025 CR Date of Decision: 1st August, 2025 , 2025 Dat Rajesh Kuma Meena Kumar alias Mota alias Rajesh Meena State of Punja f Punjab and others SUS VERSUS itioner .....Petitioner .....Responden ondents CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
this Court in CRWP-5395-2023 decided on 06.05.2024 titled as Kulwinder Singh @ Taina Vs. State of Punjab and Others and Jassa Singh @ Jassa Vs. State of Punjab and Others 2016(5) RCR (Criminal) 522 and submits that Division Bench of this Court has already considered the statutory provisions contained in the Act of 1962 and has concluded that involvement of the convict in other cases cannot be a sole ground for denying him the concession of temporary release. Relevant paragraph of judgment Kulwinder Singh @ Taina(supra) is reproduced hereinbelow: “10. Objectives of parole are twofold i.e. rehabilitation of offender and protection of society. The main purpose of parole is that prisoner can maintain continuity together with his family, friends and community and at the same time to save prisoner from harmful effects of continuous prisoner life. Parole enables a prisoner to develop a feeling of self confidence that there is a life beyond prison. It helps prisoner to develop a sense of hope and active interest in his life with a view to rehabilitate the prisoner. Competent authority can always impose sufficient and necessary conditions while granting parole. Gainful reference at this stage can be made to the judgment of Coordinate Bench in "Bansi Lal versus State of Punjab & Others", 2016(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1017, where it was observed as under :- "11. ..... During incarceration of a prisoner in jail after his conviction he is entitled for temporary release on parole which though is a concession and not a right. However, in order to reform a prisoner a periodic temporary release on parole for short duration is PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.01 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6130-2025 3 necessary. This is a welfare measure in the interest of a prisoner ..... xx xx xx xx 15. The term 'Security of the State' out of the expressions of 'law and order', and 'public order' is considered more grave. It may arise from within or outside the State. It is generally understood as an act of aggression from outside, or militant and terrorists operations engineered by foreign agencies. It can also be effected by passing of classified information like documents, secrets, maps etc. to foreign countries or through undesirable foreign links. An act which poses a threat to the State is to be considered as a threat affecting the security of the State. 'Public order', however, is synonymous with public safety. It is something more than mere law and order. Every breach of peace does not lead to public disorder. Maintenance of public order is intended to prevent grave public disorder, which is not the same as maintenance of law and order. The latter is comparatively of a lesser gravity and in fact of local significance. An act which does not affect the public at large or has no impact on it, is not to be taken as an act affecting maintenance of public order. The distinction between law and order and public order is one of degree and extent of reach of the act in question on society. In the case of breach of law and order it affects individuals directly involved as distinct from the public at large. This would raise a law and order problem only. The true test is the potentiality of the act in question. One act may affect some individuals and local persons while another though of a similar nature may impact the public at large. An act which disturbs the even tempo of life of the public at large affects the maintenance of public order. These PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.01 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6130-2025 4 aspects are to be considered by the concerned District Magistrates and competent authorities under Act while deciding to recommend or not to recommend the temporary release of a prisoner on parole and/or passing orders for temporary release by the competent authorities under the Act. The exercise is not to be lightly conducted and the concerned District Magistrate and/or the competent authorities are to apply their mind on the basis of inputs received by them for recommending or passing an order as the case may be for temporary release of prisoners on parole." 11. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manga @ Manga Singh Versus State of Punjab and others, 2020(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 133 specifically held that merely because petitioner was involved in four other cases cannot be a valid ground by itself to deny release on parole. 12. As per impugned order dated 10.04.2023 based on the report of Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, it is observed that in case petitioner is released on temporary parole, he can indulge in smuggling of narcotics and he may also abscond during parole. On this basis, prayer for parole was rejected by District Magistrate, Ferozepur by passing impugned order dated 10.04.2023 (Annexure P-2). Such mere apprehension is not a valid ground for rejection of application filed by petitioner seeking parole. Affidavit filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Zira and impugned order dated 10.04.2023 Annexure P-2 do not come to the aid of the State justifying denial of parole to petitioner. Consideration of the question whether release of petitioner on parole is likely to endanger security of State or maintenance of public order has clearly not been carried out by the competent authority. Cogent PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.01 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6130-2025 5 material to indicate the same rather than mere registration of various cases has to be available.” Notice of motion. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G. Punjab, who is present in the 3. 4. Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondents-State and justifies the order passed by respondent No.2. 5. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the judgments rendered by Division Benches of this Court in Kulwinder Singh @ Taina(supra) and Jassa Singh @ Jassa(supra) the impugned order dated 29.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by District Magistrate, Bathinda is hereby set aside, being unsustainable. 6. The petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a period of 08 weeks from 02.08.2025 and after completion of 08 weeks i.e. on 20.09.2025 at 5:00 pm, the petitioner shall surrender before the jail authorities. 7. Needless to say that in case, the authorities deviate from the statutory provisions and do not comply with the order passed by this Court, the petitioner would be at liberty to invoke the provisions contained under Article 215 of Constitution of India seeking contempt of the order passed by this Court. 8. A copy of this order be given to learned State counsel for strict compliance. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE August 01, 2025 P.C Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Yes/No Whether Reportable. : PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.01 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Arguments
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. J.S. Sandhu, Advocate for th for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl.AG P **** l.AG Punjab. HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner has filed this petitio 27 of petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution tution of India for issuance of a writ ri for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of ng of order dated 29.10.2024, Ann eputy , Annexure P-1, passed by Deputy Commissione issioner-cum-District Magistrate, Bath ase of e, Bathinda, vide which, the case of the petitioner itioners for grant of parole has been de een declined. 2. Learned counsel for the petition at the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner mo ner moved an application seeking thei le) for g their temporary release (parole) for a period of 08 d of 08 weeks as provided under Secti Good r Section 3(1)(d) of The Punjab Good Conduct Pri ct Prisoners (Temporary Release) to be ase) Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘t d as ‘the Act, 1962’), which was rejec ner on s rejected in a mechanical manner on the ground th und that in case the petitioner is releas lge in released on parole, he can indulge in smuggling o ling of the psychotropic substances, arned ances, vide Annexure P-1. Learned counsel for l for the petitioner further contend slative ontends that there is no legislative PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.01 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6130-2025 2 mandate to reject the case of the petitioner on this ground and further his case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Division Bench of