Trademark Dispute Over ‘Pe’ Settled Between Phone Pe and Bharat Pe  ||  Centre Starts Granting Citizenship Under CAA in West Bengal, Haryana and Uttarakhand  ||  Circular Regarding Prioritizing Cases of Litigants/Advocates with Disability, Issued by Delhi HC  ||  Del. HC: Free Wi-fi Facility Launched by Delhi High Court for Lawyers, General Public  ||  Ker. HC: Construction of Illegal Religious Structures Cannot be Permitted on Government Land  ||  Kar. HC: De-Nomination of Chairman of Minorities Commission by Govt. Before Term is Not Arbitrary  ||  Delhi High Court: Question of Property Title Can’t be Decided by Forums Under Senior Citizens Act  ||  Jh. HC: Can’t Cancel Bail Unless There is Violation of Bail Conditions or Accused Impedes Fair Trial  ||  Guidelines Issued by Delhi High Court for Trial Court Judges to Decide Transfer Applications  ||  P&H HC: Presence of Magistrate Mandatory to Prove Compliance With Section 52A of the NDPS Act    

Jagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. - (High Court of Himachal Pradesh) (26 Jun 2020)

Grant of remission or parole is not a right vested with the prisoner; it is a privilege available to the prisoner on fulfilling certain conditions

MANU/HP/0531/2020

Criminal

The Petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392, 328, 473, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and has now sought parole. The only ground taken by the Respondents for rejecting the request of the Petitioner for grant of parole is that, even though the Local Panchayat has no objection for grant of parole, but the Local Police have not recommended the sanction of parole on the ground that, the Petitioner has been convicted for a serious and heinous offence.

The moot question is whether the request for grant of parole can be rejected only on the ground that the petitioner has been convicted for a serious and heinous offence.

It is more than settled that the grant of remission or parole is not a right vested with the prisoner. It is a privilege available to the prisoner on fulfilling certain conditions. This is a discretionary power which has to be exercised by the authorities conferred with such powers under the relevant rules/regulations. The Court cannot exercise these powers, though once the powers are exercised, the Court may hold that the exercise of powers is not in accordance with rules.

The only ground taken by the Respondents to reject the request of parole is that, the Petitioner has been convicted for a serious and heinous offence. This cannot itself be a ground for denying the Petitioner parole in accordance with the provisions of H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968.

The Petitioner has earlier been released four times on parole for 42 days and on each and every occasion he complied with the terms and conditions of the order granting parole, more particularly, this cannot be a ground when the Petitioner was released on parole. Even at that time, the status of the Petitioner was that of a convict for the offences, therefore, in absence of any changed circumstances, it is too late for the day for the Respondents to reject the request of the Petitioner merely on the ground that he has been convicted for a serious and heinous offence.

In the instant case also, there is no material to support the conclusion drawn by the District Magistrate to reject the request for grant of parole. Consequently, this Court is left with no other option, but to allow the instant petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the Respondents are directed to release the Petitioner on parole for a period of 42 days after taking requisite personal and surety bonds.

Tags : PAROLE   RELEASE   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved