Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1921 (PNJ)

Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana

2023-05-31

GURVINDER SINGH GILL

body2023
JUDGMENT Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. (Oral) The petitioner assails order dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P-l) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Divisional Kamal, Kamal vide which the case of the petitioner for his release on furlough for 4 weeks has been declined. 2. A perusal of the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 would indicate that the petitioner's case has been declined on the apprehension that the petitioner can abscond from furlough and can commit other crimes. The relevant extract from the said order reads as under: ".........Prisoner has come on parole/furlough 08 times in the past. The prisoner can be absent from the furlough and can commit other crimes. The arrival of a prisoner on parole leave is not recommended by the police. There are other charges against the prisoner. In which the prisoner has been acquitted in the case by the Hon'ble Court and sentenced to 1 year in 01 case. The prisoner is out on bail in 01 case. Prisoner is serving life sentence in Kamal. The presumption has been expressed by the local police that if the prisoner is sent out, the possibility of non-appearance of the prisoner cannot be mled out. There is an objection to the release the prisoner on furlough. Apart from this, according to the above report presented by the police, several charges/cases have been registered against the prisoner and the possibility has been expressed by the local police that if the prisoner is sent on trial, then the possibility of the prisoner being present cannot be mled out. Prisoner Anil is not eligible for the furlough. He is not entitled for furlough. Therefore, agreeing to the above facts of the report of Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, the temporary release of prisoner Anil Kumar s/o Bam Ram is not recommended for 04 weeks." 3. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment apart from fine pursuant to judgment of conviction arising out of FIR No.207 dated 22.09.2008 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani under Sections 302/120B/506 IPC & Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act. Admittedly, the petitioner has been behind bars since the last more than 10 years. 4. A pemsal of para 3 of the reply filed on behalf of the State would indicate that the petitioner had been involved in 6 other cases out of which he stands acquitted in 5 cases and has been convicted in 1 case. Admittedly, the petitioner has been behind bars since the last more than 10 years. 4. A pemsal of para 3 of the reply filed on behalf of the State would indicate that the petitioner had been involved in 6 other cases out of which he stands acquitted in 5 cases and has been convicted in 1 case. The details of said cases in tabulated form are as under: Sr. No. FIR No. Convicted/Acquitted 1. FIR No.437 dated 16.10.2009 under Sections 323 , 506 , 34 IPC, P.S. Sadar Bhiwani Convicted vide judgment dated 19.02.2015 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani 2. FIR No.308 dated 05.10.2023 under section 42 of the Prisons Act, P.S. Bhondsi, Gurugram Acquitted vide order dated 05.11.2022 passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sohana, Gurugram 3. FIR No.474 dated 09.07.2013 under section 42 of the Prisons Act, P.S. Sadar Bhiwani Acquitted vide order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani 4. FIR No.297 dated 02.08.2005 under Sections 147 , 149 , 427 , 452 , 440 , 506 IPC, P.S. City Bhiwani Acquitted vide order dated 05.11.2022 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani 5. FIR No.417 dated 13.06.2013 under section 42 of the Prisons Act, P.S. Sadar Bhiwani Acquitted vide order dated 09.07.2018 by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani 6. FIR No.420 dated 15.06.2013 under section 42 of the Prisons Act, P.S.Sadar Bhiwani Acquitted vide order dated 19.12.2018 by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani 5. A perusal of para 4 of the reply filed on behalf of the State reveals that the petitioner had earlier been granted parole/furlough on 8 occasions and had surrendered back in time. The said details are reproduced as under: Sr. No. Date of release Date of surrender Period of parole/furlough Remarks 1. 29.06.2011 11.08.2011 6 weeks parole Surrender on due date 2. 19.10.2011 17.11.2011 4 weeks parole Surrender on due date 3. 05.01.2012 17.02.2012 6 weeks parole Surrender on due date 4. 20.03.2012 18.04.2012 4 weeks parole Surrender on due date 5. 01.12.2016 06.12.2016 05 days interim bail In compliance of orders of the Hon’ble High Court in CRM-36541/2016 in CRA-297-DB of 2010 & surrender on due date 6. 20.04.2020 02.06.2020 Special parole Surrender on due date 7. 25.05.2021 01.09.2021 Special parole Surrender on due date 8. 20.03.2012 18.04.2012 4 weeks parole Surrender on due date 5. 01.12.2016 06.12.2016 05 days interim bail In compliance of orders of the Hon’ble High Court in CRM-36541/2016 in CRA-297-DB of 2010 & surrender on due date 6. 20.04.2020 02.06.2020 Special parole Surrender on due date 7. 25.05.2021 01.09.2021 Special parole Surrender on due date 8. 11.05.2022 23.06.2022 6 weeks parole In compliance of order dated 20.04.2022 in CRWP No.1638 of 2022 6. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had ever misused the concession of parole/furlough when he was released on earlier 8 occasions. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the authorities concerned have not taken all the relevant factors into account while deciding the case of the petitioner for grant of furlough particularly the fact that the petitioner had never ever misused the concession of parole/furlough. Although the petitioner was involved in half a dozen cases, but he stands acquitted in 5 of such cases and as such, the said cases cannot be held out against him in any manner. Consequently, the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P-l) cannot sustain and is hereby set aside. The petitioner would be at liberty to approach the authorities concerned afresh for grant of furlough/parole. In case, any such application is filed, the same shall be processed by the respondents and shall be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of 2 weeks from filing of such application. 7. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.