ABHINANDAN MUTNEJA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed, inter alia, for issuance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus, directing official respondents No.1 to 6 to grant an opportunity of hearing to petitioner while considering the request of parole of convicts-respondents No.8 to 11 keeping in view the threat perception of petitioner. Another prayer has been made for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, for quashing permission, dtd. 6/2/2025, granted to respondent No.9 releasing him on parole.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh and others Versus Ashish Mishra @ Monu and another, (2022) 9 SCC 321, to contend that petitioner, who is a complainant in FIR No. 34, dtd. 19/4/2019, lodged for various offences for murder of his father, is entitled to be heard before convicts-respondents No.8 to 11 are released on parole during the pendency of the trial.

(3.) Upon notice, reply dated, 18/7/2025, has been filed on behalf of official respondents No.1 and 5, wherein it has been stated that private respondents have been convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka on 20/7/2024 and are undergoing life imprisonment. Respondent No.9 was released on parole on 27/12/2024 for a period of eight weeks and he surrendered back on the expiry of parole period. It has been submitted that case of respondent No.11 for release on parole was under consideration when he approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which was disposed of with a direction to take a final decision on his application. Accordingly, application submitted by respondent No.11 was accepted and he was released on parole on 25/3/2025 for a period of four weeks and he also surrendered back on the expiry of parole period. In a separate affidavit filed by Deputy Magistrate, Fazilka, it has been stated that as other convicts, who were also released on parole, have returned to their respective jails, petition has become infructuous. A stand has been taken that Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur is the recommending authority and the concerned District Magistrate as well as the SSP are the competent authority to decide the request for parole. State counsel has asserted that a complainant does not have any right to be heard before request for release on parole or furlough is considered by the competent authority under the provisions of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short "1962 Act").