Judgment:
CRWP No.2015 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No.2015 of 2013 Date of Decision:- 4.8.2014 Gurjant Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Arun Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Rajat Bansal, AAG Punjab for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Rahul Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
(Oral) The matrix of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant criminal writ petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of General Court Martial, petitioner Gurjant Singh s/o Nahar Singh (prisoner) was convicted & sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the commission of offences punishable u/s 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code and Section 69 of The Army Act. Consequently, he was lodged in Central Jail, Patiala for serving out the period of his sentence.
2. During the course of his sentence, the petitioner has applied for four weeks' parole to meet his family members. His request was declined by the Army authorities, by virtue of impugned order dated 22.12.2012 ARVIND SHARMA201408.05 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRWP No.2015 of 2013 2 (Annexure P1), which, in substance, is as under (para 2):- “The application for parole from Ex. Spr Gurjant Singh has been examined by the Competent Authority. In the application, the individual has requested for four week prole to meet his family member. The grounds of meeting his family member does not fulfill the criteria for grant of parole to Military prisoners in civil jails as mentioned in the policy letter issued by the Army Headquarters. The copy of the ibid mentioned policy letter is enclosed along with for your reference please.”. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present criminal writ petition to challenge the impugned order, invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant criminal writ petition in this context.
5. Ex facie the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner is entitled to parole for four weeks to meet his family members, so, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, is neither tenable nor the observations of this Court in case Inderpal Singh v. State of Punjab and others 1998 Crl. L.J.
1736 are at all applicable to the facts of this case, wherein, army authorities were directed to re-consider the case of petitioner (therein) to grant the benefit of parole for agricultural purposes/operations for livelihood of his family members. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but, to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the present controversy, for the reasons mentioned here-in-below.
6. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that it has been authoritatively held in Inderpal Singh's case (supra) that only the army ARVIND SHARMA201408.05 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRWP No.2015 of 2013 3 authorities u/s 179 (d) of the Army Act are competent to release such convicts on parole under the rules/instructions issued thereunder and not by the State authorities under The Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962.
7. Such thus being the legal provisions and position of material on record, now the short & significant question, though important, that arises for determination in the petition is, as to whether the petitioner is entitled to pointed parole to meet his family members or not ?.
8. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the negative.
9. Indisputably, in pursuance of the provisions of the Army Act, the army authorities have formulated the guidelines/instructions dated 27.1.2006 (Appendix 'D') attached with the impugned order (Annexure P1), which postulates that the benefit of parole can only be granted to such convicts during the period of grave emergency, like death or serious illness of father/mother/brother/sister/spouse/children, after verifying the genuineness of the case or to facilitate the inmate in specialized treatment disease like cancer, for which, no arrangement for such treatment is locally available in accordance with the opinion of civil surgeon and of the medical officer of the prison or for any other emergent/unforeseen contingent like marriage of dependent children in the family, where in the opinion of the competent authority, the presence of the inmate is considered essential and to carry out agricultural process on his land, provided that there is no major male member besides him in his family to do the farming.
10. Not only that, clause 2 of Appendix 'D' further posits that a ARVIND SHARMA201408.05 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRWP No.2015 of 2013 4 person convicted for a serious offences like murder (Section 302 IPC), rape (376 IPC), offences punishable u/ss 34, 35, 37 of The Army Act and offences under the Official Secret Act, 1923 should not be granted parole except only in emergent cases. Meaning thereby, the benefit of parole can only be granted to convict in case he fulfills the indicated conditions contained therein and not otherwise. Indisputably, there is no provision in the indicated policy to grant the parole to the petitioner, to meet his family members. Moreover, the High Court cannot legislate or amend, it can only implement the law/instructions, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, to my mind, the Army authorities have rightly recorded the valid grounds in this regard and declined the prayer of petitioner for parole, by virtue of impugned order. Such order, containing cogent reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, unless and until, the same is illegal and perverse. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant criminal writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. Sd/- (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 4.8.2014 AS ARVIND SHARMA201408.05 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh