HARPREET SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for grant of 08 weeks parole under Sec. 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (as amended upto date) and in view of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.2084 of 2023 titled as Harpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab vide Annexure P-1.

(2.) It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was prosecuted in FIR No.T20107154 under the provisions of Chapter III of Part V of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was convicted/sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with minimum term of 22 years by the learned Central Criminal Court, London vide order dtd. 15/4/2011 in view of Sec. 269 of Criminal Justice Act, 2003. He has submitted that under the provisions of the Repatriation of the Prisoners Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act of 2003), the petitioner was repatriated to India and thereafter he is undergoing his sentence in India. He has submitted that the petitioner earlier approached praying for the grant of 08 weeks of emergency parole for performing his own marriage, which was rejected by the respondents authorities. He has further submitted that the Criminal Writ Petition bearing CRWP No.664 of 2021, assailing the rejection order by the respondents authorities, was also dismissed by this Court. The said order was further assailed by the petitioner by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.2084 of 2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide its order dtd. 24/7/2023 disposed of the appeal by permitting the petitioner to file a fresh application. In pursuance to the same, the petitioner filed a fresh petition praying for the grant of parole before the authorities which was declined and then filed CRWP No.10276 of 2023 before this Court. This Court vide order dtd. 16/2/2024 allowed the petition filed by the petitioner by granting him 06 weeks of parole. He has submitted that after the marriage of the petitioner, his family being NRI returned to UK. However, his wife is residing in her matrimonial home in India itself. He has submitted that the petitioner applied for grant of parole for 08 weeks on 14/6/2024 and his case was duly recommended by the Jail Superintendent. It was forwarded by the District Magistrate as well as Senior Superintendent of Police to respondent No.2, who further recommended his case to respondent No.1 i.e. Union of India. The wife of petitioner made a representation dtd. 5/10/2024 (Annexure P-4) to the respondents authorities for considering the case of petitioner for granting him 08 weeks parole. He has submitted that no action has been taken by respondent No.1 till date. He has submitted that as per the provisions of the Act of 2003, the petitioner is duly entitled for the grant of parole. He has submitted that when earlier parole of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent-authorities and by this Court, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had duly clarified the powers vesting in Union of India under clause (2) of Article 10 of the Act of 2003 and thus, there is no prohibition for grant of parole to the petitioner on valid and lawful grounds. He has submitted that the petitioner has a valid and lawful ground for granting him parole as prayed but the respondents-authorities are not proceeding with the same, which is a violation of statutory provisions of the Act. He has thus submitted that the petition be allowed by granting the petitioner 8 weeks of parole as prayed for.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the reply filed by way of an affidavit of Arun Sobti, Director (PR and ATC), Women Safety Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, Major Dhyan Chand National Stadium, India Gate Circle, New Delhi on behalf of respondent No.1. He has submitted that the petitioner was transferred from UK to India on 18/6/2019 under the agreement of transfer of sentenced persons between India and UK to serve the remainder of his sentence in his native country. He has submitted that the minimum term has been set at 22 years by the UK Court, which will complete in April, 2032. The petitioner has filed the petition seeking parole of 08 weeks under Sec. 3(1)(d) of the Act. He has contended that UK authorities have informed that they had serious concerns about the application filed. He has argued that if the petitioner is granted parole, it could jeopardise future transfer of prisoners to India as the petitioner has committed a heinous crime. He has submitted that the petitioner has been brought to India under the aegis of Union of India agreement with UK which need to be appreciated and the concerns of UK Government need to be taken into account. He has further submitted that the petitioner was already granted 06 weeks of parole but that does not entitle him for granting the parole again as prayed for by him. He has thus submitted that the petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed.