Angrej Singh v. State of Uttarakhand &Others

Judgment

1. This Criminal Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, to cancel the parole granted to respondents 5 and 6 (Manveer Singh and Jagveer Singh) and further seeking direction for future compliance with proper norms and procedures in granting parole to convicted persons.

2. The genesis of the present petition traces back to an incident that took place on 17th July 2015, resulting in the murder of one Jaimal Singh, the father of the present Petitioner, thereby giving rise to the registration of FIR No. 124 of 2015 at Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The investigation in the aforesaid FIR culminated in the filing of a chargesheet dated 10th October 2015 against seventeen accused persons, including the present respondents 5 and 6, under Sections 302, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial commenced on the basis of the said chargesheet. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1183 of 2024-----Angrej Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & Others 1 Ashish Naithani J.

4. While the trial in FIR No. 124 of 2015 was pending, another incident occurred on 7th January 2018 during a Nagar Kirtan at Sitarganj. According to the Petitioner, seven persons, including three accused named in FIR No. 124 of 2015, allegedly came to the spot with the premeditated intention of eliminating the Petitioner and other witnesses. In the course of the occurrence, two associates of the Petitioner, namely Daljeet Singh and Harbans Singh, were murdered, and a witness, Rajvinder Singh, sustained serious injuries. The said incident led to the registration of FIR No. 10 of 2018 at Police Station Sitarganj.

5. The trial court, vide its judgment dated 16th April 2019, convicted all accused persons in FIR No. 124/2015 and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Similarly, the trial in FIR No. 10/2018 also resulted in the conviction of all seven accused persons for life, as per the judgment and order dated 16th March 2023 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar.

6. The Petitioner has further brought to the notice of this Court that in the year 2020, certain accused persons were granted short-term bail for a single day. Jagtar Singh and Tahal Singh were released pursuant to an order dated 7th July 2020 to attend the last rites of Jagtar Singh’s mother and Tahal Singh’s grandmother, while Gurdev Singh was released pursuant to an order dated 6th August 2020 to attend the last rites of his mother. The said releases were permitted only under strict police custody and for a limited duration between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1183 of 2024-----Angrej Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & Others 2 Ashish Naithani J.

7. The immediate cause for the present petition arose when the Jail Superintendent, Sampurnanand Civil, Sitarganj, submitted an application for parole on 18th September 2024 before the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. The District Magistrate recommended the application on 28th September 2024, pursuant to which parole was granted to Manveer Singh and Jagveer Singh (respondents 5 and 6) for the period from 21st September 2024 to 6th October 2024, to enable them to attend the terhvi (thirteen-day mourning ceremony) of their sister.

8. The Petitioner attempted to secure a copy of the parole order under the Right to Information Act, but the Jail Superintendent denied the same on the grounds that it constituted third-party information. The Petitioner has challenged this denial and the manner in which parole was granted without following proper procedures.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently contended that the grant of parole to respondents no. 5 and 6 is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the established procedure. It is urged that the scheme governing parole requires the competent authority to first obtain a police report, upon which an assessment is made and, thereafter, the District Magistrate considers the matter and takes a decision after due application of mind to all relevant factors. Learned counsel further submitted that the District Magistrate is duty-bound to ascertain whether there exists any threat perception to the informant, witnesses, or their family members before granting parole to convicted persons, particularly in cases involving heinous offences such as murder. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1183 of 2024-----Angrej Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & Others 3 Ashish Naithani J.

10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has further drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that certain accused in FIR No. 124 of 2015, namely Harjeet Singh @ Kala, Jagveer Singh, and Prabhjot Singh @ Jota, allegedly committed a double murder while on bail in the said case. This, it is urged, demonstrates a clear and continuing threat perception to the Petitioner as well as to other witnesses of FIR No. 124 of 2015, rendering the grant of parole to respondents no. 5 and 6 highly inappropriate and unsafe. It has further been contended that in the present case, no police report was obtained and no communication was made from the jail authorities to the police station before granting parole, which is contrary to the established norms and procedure.

11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the ex parte and unilateral grant of parole by the District Magistrate, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner or other affected parties, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is urged that such action warrants immediate cancellation of the parole order. Learned counsel has further contended that the denial of a copy of the parole order under the Right to Information Act, 2005, on the ground of it being third-party information, is misconceived, since the Petitioner, being complainant and a directly affected party, has a legitimate right to access such information in order to safeguard his safety and legal interests.

12. Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State respondents, has defended the action of the District Magistrate in granting parole to respondents 5 and 6. He submitted that parole is Criminal Writ Petition No. 1183 of 2024-----Angrej Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & Others 4 Ashish Naithani J. a discretionary relief available to convicted persons under the prison rules and regulations, and the District Magistrate has acted within his jurisdiction and authority in granting the same. It has been contended on behalf of the State that the parole was granted for a genuine and compassionate reason, namely to attend the 'terhvi' ceremony of a family member, which is an important religious and social obligation.

13. It is argued on behalf of the State that adequate safeguards and conditions were imposed while granting parole, and there is nothing on record to indicate that the parolees violated those conditions or posed any threat either to public safety or to the Petitioner during the parole period. Learned counsel for respondents nos. 5 and 6 has further submitted that his clients have been serving their sentences without any disciplinary infraction and have consistently maintained good conduct while in custody. He contended that parole, particularly for purposes such as attending family functions and religious ceremonies, is a recognized entitlement of prisoners, and the same cannot be denied based on speculative or unfounded apprehensions

14. It has been contended that the previous incidents of violence occurred several years ago, and there is no recent evidence to suggest any continuing threat. The counsel argued that the Petitioner cannot seek to perpetually deny parole to the respondents based on past events, especially when they have been duly punished through conviction and imprisonment. The respondents have argued that the procedure followed by the District Magistrate was in accordance with the established practice and that there is no mandatory requirement to hear the complainant or witnesses before granting parole in routine matters such as attending family functions. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1183 of 2024-----Angrej Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & Others 5 Ashish Naithani J.

15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record carefully, this Court finds it necessary to examine the issues raised in the present petition in the light of established legal principles and precedents governing the grant of parole to convicted persons.

16. At the outset, this Court acknowledges that parole is indeed a discretionary relief available to convicted persons under the prison rules and regulations. The power to grant parole is vested in the District Magistrate, and such power is to be exercised judiciously after considering all relevant factors, including the nature of the crime, conduct of the prisoner, security considerations, and the purpose for which parole is sought.

17. However, this Court is constrained to observe discretionary powers, however vast in their scope, cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. Their exercise must rest on relevant considerations, conform to established procedure, and adhere to the principles of natural justice. Authorities are not at liberty to disregard material factors or to bypass prescribed safeguards while invoking such discretion.

18. The failure to seek a police report becomes particularly significant in the present case, considering the serious nature of the crimes committed by the respondents and the history of violence associated with the co-accused. The fact that certain accused persons committed further murders while on bail in the same case creates a legitimate security concern that ought to have been addressed before granting parole. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1183 of 2024-----Angrej Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & Others 6 Ashish Naithani J.

19. This Court finds merit in the Petitioner's contention that there exists a continuing threat perception to the complainant and witnesses. The commission of double murder by the co-accused while on bail in the same case cannot be dismissed as a mere coincidence or an isolated incident. Such conduct establishes a pattern of behaviour that creates reasonable apprehension of threat to the safety and security of witnesses and their families.

20. While this Court recognizes the humanitarian aspect of allowing convicted persons to attend family functions and religious ceremonies, such considerations cannot override the paramount duty of the State to ensure the safety and security of citizens, particularly those who have cooperated with the law enforcement agencies as witnesses.

21. This Court also finds that the classification of the parole order as third-party information and its denial under the RTI Act is legally untenable. The Petitioner, being the original complainant and a directly affected party, has a legitimate right to access information regarding the grant of parole to the accused persons, especially considering the security implications involved.

22. However, this Court is also mindful of the fact that the parole period has already expired, and the respondents 5 and 6 have presumably returned to custody after completing their parole. In such circumstances, the prayer for cancellation of parole becomes infructuous. Nevertheless, this Court deems it appropriate to issue directions for ensuring compliance with proper procedures in future cases. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1183 of 2024-----Angrej Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & Others 7 Ashish Naithani J.

23. This Court further observes that while the Petitioner's concerns regarding security are legitimate and deserve serious consideration, the remedy sought through the present writ petition is not entirely appropriate. The proper course would have been to approach the concerned authorities with objections when the parole application was under consideration, rather than seeking post-facto cancellation through writ jurisdiction.

24. Moreover, this Court notes that there is no material on record to suggest that the respondents actually posed any threat or created any disturbance during the parole period. The Petitioner's case is primarily based on apprehensions arising from past incidents rather than any contemporary threat or violation.

25. This Court is also conscious of the well-established principle that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised in matters where alternative remedies are available. In the present case, if the Petitioner had specific objections to the grant of parole, he could have approached the appropriate authorities through proper channels rather than directly invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

26. While this Court acknowledges the procedural lapses pointed out by the Petitioner, it also recognizes that the District Magistrate's decision was not entirely without basis, as it was made for a genuine and compassionate purpose. The failure to follow proper procedures, while regrettable, does not necessarily vitiate the decision entirely, particularly when no actual harm has resulted from such grant of parole. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1183 of 2024-----Angrej Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & Others 8 Ashish Naithani J.

27. This Court further observes that the present petition appears to be filed with an unreasonable delay, as the parole was granted in September 2024 and had already expired by October 2024, but the petition was filed only in late October 2024. Such delay diminishes the urgency and efficacy of the relief sought.

28. Taking into consideration all the above factors, this Court finds that while the Petitioner's concerns have some merit, the present writ petition is not maintainable in its current form. The prayer for cancellation of already expired parole is infructuous, and the alternative remedies available to the Petitioner have not been properly explored or exhausted. ORDER In view of the detailed analysis set forth above, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought by the Petitioner in the present writ petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. Arti ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH Ashish Naithani, J. 12.08.2025 Criminal Writ Petition No. 1183 of 2024-----Angrej Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & Others 9 Ashish Naithani J.