Humane approach must in parole cases: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, April 28

Virtually rapping the authorities concerned in the State of Haryana for passing mechanical orders in parole cases, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the forwarding of its order to the State Chief Secretary for “necessary circulation amongst the quarters concerned”.

Breach of peace fear not ground for denial

The reasoning being given that there is apprehension of breach of peace is totally alien for the purposes of grant of parole, especially more so when on an earlier occasion the petitioner had availed the benefit and surrendered back in time. — Justice GS Sandhawalia & Justice Vikas Suri, Punjab & Haryana High Court

This, the Bench ruled, was essential so that a “more humanistic approach is taken by them while dealing with such like applications and the burden of this Court can be reduced”.

The direction came after the Bench of Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Vikas Suri observed that the High Court had passed repeated orders, holding that declining parole plea only on the basis of apprehension of the breach of peace was not justified. Yet, the competent authorities continued to pass mechanical orders, which the court had to deal with on a regular basis.

The matter was brought to the bench’s notice after a petition was filed against the state of Haryana and other respondents by Phool Kumar through counsel RS Dhull. He had challenged order dated January 27 passed by Rohtak Divisional Commissioner, whereby the benefit of parole was declined to the petitioner. The bench observed the paper book’s perusal showed that the petitioner was undergoing rigorous imprisonment for 12 years under the provisions of the NDPS Act.

The benefit of parole was declined while noting that the petitioner had 4 acres registered in his name, but his family was capable of performing agricultural tasks. Another additional ground was regarding the apprehension of disturbance of peace and tranquillity.

It was “whole heartedly” accepted by Divisional Commissioner without any application of mind or taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner on an earlier occasion availed 75-week parole and surrendered on time. Nothing was pointed out in reply now filed by the respondents that petitioner at that point of time misused parole.