Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 429 (PNJ)

Court on its own motion v. State of Punjab

2012-03-06

MAHESH GROVER, RANJAN GOGOI

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjan Gogoi, C.J.: (Oral) - This suo moto writ petition has been registered on the basis of an order dated 30.3.2010 passed by a learned single Judge of this court while hearing Criminal Appeal No.332-SB of 2002 in which the accused had jumped the parole granted to him. The matter being of considerable importance, detailed facts and figures were sought for by the court which indicate that as on date in the State of Punjab 108 convicts who were released on parole are still absconding whereas in the State of Haryana the number of such convicts is 249 and in the Union Territory, Chandigarh 18 convicts granted parole have been absconding. While in the State of Punjab two convicts have been re-arrested; in the State of Haryana 23 and in the Union Territory 5 convicts have been rearrested. The above figures would go to show that a considerable number of convicts, who have jumped parole, are still at large, though according to both the States of Punjab and Haryana as well as the Union Territory Administration every endeavour is being made to apprehend the absconding convicts. 2. The above, though, according to the learned Amicus Curiae, represent a small percentage of the total number of convicts who have been released on parole, in our considered view, the same would call for certain directions from the court both in the matter of re-arrest of such convicts as well as in the matter of initial grant of parole and the action to be taken in the event the convicts do not report to their respective jails after completion of the period of parole. 3. Insofar as the re-arrest of the convicts is concerned, the stand taken by the two States as well as the Union Territory Administration leaves no manner of doubt that efforts are being made to trace out such convicts and re-arrest them. The aforesaid aspect of the case, therefore, can be answered by a direction to the two States as well as the Union Territory Administration to continue the efforts undertaken and to ensure that all such convicts, who have jumped parole, are re-arrested and brought back to their respective jails to suffer the period of sentence imposed on them. The aforesaid aspect of the case, therefore, can be answered by a direction to the two States as well as the Union Territory Administration to continue the efforts undertaken and to ensure that all such convicts, who have jumped parole, are re-arrested and brought back to their respective jails to suffer the period of sentence imposed on them. Insofar as the convicts who fail to report to the concerned jails after the period of parole is over, what is required to be done by the jail authorities is to inform the jurisdictional police station of the said fact so that an FIR can be immediately registered in respect of the incident. After registration of the case under the appropriate sections of the Act viz. sections 8/9 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 due and proper investigation of the facts surrounding the convict’s failure to report to the jail has to be made immediately as with the passage of time the re-arrest of an absconding convict would become increasingly difficult. Both the States as well as the Union Territory Administration are directed to ensure that such FIRs are lodged forthwith and investigations are carried out without any delay so that the absconding convicts can be re-arrested and brought back to the jails at the earliest. 4. Insofar as the initial grant of parole is concerned, the parole granting authority is largely dependent on the report of the police to decide as to whether parole should or should not be granted in a particular case. It is the jurisdictional police station where the convict has his residence and property which is responsible for submission of the necessary reports both with regard to the existence of the circumstances for which the parole has been prayed for and the antecedents of the accused as also the chances of his return to jail after completion of the parole period. Normally, the jurisdictional police station would send out a police personnel to complete the aforesaid task who would so act in consultation with the panchayat authorities, report of which authority is also a mandatory requirement. There appears to be some amount of casual attitude at this level and the chances of submission of a completely incorrect report in certain cases also cannot be ruled out. There appears to be some amount of casual attitude at this level and the chances of submission of a completely incorrect report in certain cases also cannot be ruled out. The problem that arises in such circumstances, according to us, can be dealt with by exercising strict supervision and monitoring of the role played by the jurisdictional police station and often by counter-checking the information supplied by such police station or by the panchayat authorities. This is the responsibility of the Superintendent of Police of the district before whom the report of the police is placed prior to submission of the same before the parole granting authority. In the event such a report is found incorrect or false, the person who had submitted the same and all other persons responsible in this regard should be identified and dealt with under the appropriate provisions of the law including the penal law. According to us, if the required monitoring and supervision is exercised in the above manner and with due diligence, the prospects of release of persons of dubious antecedents on parole would be ruled out thereby reducing the number of parole jumping convicts. 5. We further would like to add, at this stage, that some amount of monitoring of the activities of convict and his whereabouts after being released on parole would also go a long way in solving the problem. We, therefore, direct the States of Punjab and Haryana as well as the Union Territory Administration to fine tune the procedure adopted before and after release of convicts on parole and suitably engraft the directions contained in the present order into such procedure as may be already existing. This will be done forthwith and without any delay so that immediate measures are in place to tackle the problem of convicts jumping parole. 6. Having dealt with the issues raised in the writ petition in the above manner, we do not consider it necessary or feasible to issue any further direction and to keep the writ petition pending any longer. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition in terms of the above order. 7. 6. Having dealt with the issues raised in the writ petition in the above manner, we do not consider it necessary or feasible to issue any further direction and to keep the writ petition pending any longer. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition in terms of the above order. 7. Before parting we would like to observe that whether the appeal of absconding accused in Criminal Appeal No.332-SB of 2002 should be heard on merits is settled by a decision of this court in Vikram vs. State of Punjab, 2009(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 193 and reference to a larger Bench mentioned in the order dated 30.3.2010 of the learned single Judge will not be called for in view of the fact that the said aspect of the reference sought has already been declined by the Chief Justice by orders passed on the administrative side. ---------0.B.S.0------------