HANS RAJ Vs. U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner Hans Raj challenges the impugned order passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, U.T. Chandigarh vide which his plea for grant of parole was rejected. The writ petitioner sought parole to meet his family members and also to take care of their needs.

(2.) THE Deputy Commissioner of Police embarked upon verification of the facts set out in the application praying for parole and submitted a report on 21.06.2014. He had virtually made a positive observations therein that the convict had to take care of his 60 years old widowed mother, who was ill. But, unfortunately, he jumped to a conclusion without any basis that granting parole to the convict would create law and order problem and that peace and tranquility in the locality would also be affected. He also made an observation that the convict could jump parole. The Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Patel Nagar based on the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police held that there was an apprehension that the convict could jump parole. The impugned order passed by the Inspector General of Prisons also reads that there was apprehension that the convict would jump parole. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that the plea for parole can not be rejected on the ground that the release of the convict would result in breach of peace. The plea for parole can not be rejected just because there was an apprehension that the convict would jump parole. Further, it is her submission that there is no material referred to by the authorities concerned to jump to such a conclusion that law and order problem would arise on release of convict on parole and that and there was some possibility for the convict to jump parole.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the 2nd respondent -Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh would submit that the 2nd respondent would abide by the decision taken by this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondentUnion Territory, Chandigarh would submit that the plea for parole has been rightly rejected as there was an apprehension that the petitioner would jump parole and that his release would create some law and order problem. It is his further submission that the writ petitioner can not be released on parole for the reasons assigned by him.