Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, November 8
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that meeting the family was a legal and valid ground for grating parole to a convict as it was a significant aspect of right to life. The assertion by Justice Vikas Bahl of the High Court came in a case where a convict was seeking release on eight-week parole for socialising and meeting the family.
Justice Bahl’s Bench, during the course of the hearing, was told that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to 10-year imprisonment in two cases registered in April 2015 under provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act at the Khemkaran police station in Tarn Taran district.
The Bench was also told that the petitioner had applied for parole under the provisions of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act as there was no male member in his family. His father had already expired and he did not have a brother. As such, he wanted to meet and take care of his aged mother, wife, an unmarried sister and a minor son.
His case was forwarded to the Tarn Taran District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner. A report subsequently submitted stated that there was no threat to the state’s security and maintenance of public order. Yet, his case was rejected. One of the reasons given in the order was that the petitioner would indulge in smuggling.
Justice Bahl asserted that the petitioner had been in custody for sufficient time and had not met his family. It was mentioned in the impugned order that there was no threat to the state security and maintenance of public order in case he was released. The allegations in the impugned order to the effect that the petitioner could indulge in smuggling were based on surmises and conjectures. There was no material for recording the said finding.
Referring to a plethora of judgments, Justice Bahl asserted: “A cumulative reading would show that meeting one’s family is one of the most important facets of right to life and thus, the said ground for parole is legal and valid and in accordance with law”.
Justice Bahl added that a Division Bench in another case observed the apprehension that the petitioner therein would again involve himself in a criminal case and might abscond was mere imagination of the authorities. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the petitioner therein was released on parole.
Justice Bahl added that there was no specific input from any quarter to suggest the petitioner in the present case would also indulge in crime for which he had been convicted. “The impugned order having been passed on the basis of surmises and conjectures deserves to be set aside”.
An important facet of life
A cumulative reading would show that meeting one’s family is one of the most important facets of right to life and thus, the said ground for parole is legal and valid and in accordance with law. — Justice Vikas Bahlme,Punjab and Haryana High Court
