SUKHVIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition impugning the order dtd. 24/4/2020 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for releasing the petitioner on parole was declined by the respondents.

(2.) It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was convicted in FIR No.93 dtd. 9/9/2008 for the offence under Ss. 302, 177, 363, 376, 201, 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Khammano, District Fatehgarh Sahib vide his judgment and order dtd. 25/2/2010 and, he was sentenced for life. Thereafter, the same has been assailed by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal which was dismissed by this Court vide order dtd. 19/3/2019.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is undergoing his sentence and during this period, he has availed parole 13 times. During the period, he remained on parole, he never disobeyed any terms and conditions of the parole granted to him and thus, surrendered every time after completion of the period of parole. He submits that petitioner has filed an application for grant of parole for agriculture purpose in the month of March, 2020. He approached respondent-authorities for granting him parole and the proceeding was initiated and the reports were called from the concerned quarters. He has submitted in order to conduct the enquiry the concerned officials went to the village of the petitioner and enquired about him and the panchayat also gave a report in favour of the petitioner. However, despite nothing adverse against the petitioner, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole was declined. The prayer was declined without assigning any reason. He submits that the only reason given in the report by the Magistrate was that he considered the case of the petitioner as per the direction given by the committee chaired by the Hon'ble Justice R.K.Jain of Punjab and Haryana High Court. He has submitted that the impugned order passed is totally cryptic and without any reason. He has however, submitted that the parole is the concession granted by the authorities and as on the earlier ocassions when the petitioner availed the same for 13 times and there is nothing on record showing that the petitioner has ever violated any term or condition of parole, the same cannot be denied to him. He further submits that the stand taken by the State in declining his prayer that the petitioner falls in the 'hardcore category' also does not survive as the petitioner has availed parole even after the instructions in 2015 and has never disobeyed the concession granted. He has submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the petitioner be granted concession of parole as prayed for.