Likelihood of engaging in sale of intoxicants is not a valid ground for rejecting prisoner’s parole application

Isha Sawant | Government Law College | 19th September 2020

Manga @ Manga Singh v. State of Punjab

Facts:

The petitioner- Manga Singh filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court under articles- 226/227 0f the Indian Constitution challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate whereby the petitioner’s parole was rejected. The petitioner was convicted for possession of 70 kg of Poppy Husk in FIR no.169 dated 15-10-2010, registered at Police Station, Kapurthala for offence u/s-15 of the narcotics and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS), Act 1985, by the Special Court and sentenced to 10 years, petitioner’s appeal in this case pending before the High Court. He was also convicted in FIR no.129 dated 27-06-2014, also u/s15 of the NDPS Act 1985, appeal pending before the High Court. The petitioner had applied for parole for six weeks period, by an application dated 20-02-2017 addressed to the Jail Superintendent (respondent no-4), he was to meet his family and get treatment done of his wife suffering from liver ailment. The application was processed and the villagers of Latianwal did not object to the petitioner’s parole, Jail Superintendent sent a reminder dated 01-09-2017 to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate reasoned that besides conviction in FIR no. 169 the petitioner had 4 other cases of similar nature registered against him under the NDPS Act 1985, and he had been a proclaimed offender for long, he was likely to engage in sale of intoxicants while on parole and badly impact the society and harm the people. The District Magistrate agreeing with the report of Senior Superintendent of Police (respondent no.3), rejected the petitioner’s application for parole under the provisions of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. The petitioner had thus approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court for grant of parole and to dismiss the impugned order of the District Magistrate.  

Issues:

• Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive grant of parole for a period of six weeks.
• Whether the DM was right in rejecting the petitioner’s parole application.

Legal Provisions:

• Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, Section-15 Punishment for contravention in relation to poppy straw.
• Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962.
• Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1963.

Petitioner’s contention:

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the ground for rejecting his parole application are contrary to the provisions of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act 1962 and Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1963, it provides for the rejection of parole on the ground of danger to the security of state or prejudicial to maintenance of public order and not because of the number of cases registered against the prisoner or the likelihood of him dealing in intoxicants again, which are irrelevant considerations. They submitted that the petitioner had maintained good conduct during his imprisonment period and so there is no obstruction for granting him parole, they referred to the judgement in the case of Daler Singh v. State of Punjab, where it was held that a mere apprehension that the petitioner will abscond is not a ground for rejecting his parole case even if he had indulged in smuggling activities earlier. They also pleaded that the conviction of the petitioner in FIR no. 41 was suspended by the High Court on 12-11-2018; similarly, the Special Court by a judgement dated 17-02-2020, acquitted the petitioner in FIR no.81 for offences under the NDPS Act 1985 along with offences under Arms Act; in FIR no.17, the petitioner was convicted u/s-21 of the NDPS Act 1985, by a judgement dated 02-09-2015, the petitioner had already undergone the sentence period for this conviction. The petitioner further submitted that was in custody from 2014, so he has been behind bars or the past six years and his possible release date is 08-06-2020, so the counsel prayed that the benefit of parole be extended to the petitioner and that the DM’s order is not sustainable. 

Respondents Contention:

The state chose not to file a reply and to defend the order of Special court on the merits and facts of the case.

Observations of the Court:

The court observed that it was not disputed that the Jail Superintendent had favourably recommended the petitioner’s case, the order for rejecting the same was passed three years later only on account of the direction of the High Court to decide the case expeditiously in accordance with law, thus the petitioner had undergone further three years of imprisonment since the application was made. The court then went through rules (3) and (4) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1963; the court observed that the petitioner’s case does not fall under the exceptions of danger to security of the sate or prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that the Jail Superintendent had also not recorded the same. The court observed that for the petitioner’s prayer for relief, reliance can be placed on the judgement in the case of Ramchander v. State of Punjab (2017), where it was held that ‘likelihood of committing a crime while on parole’ is not a sufficient ground for rejection a parole application and it will not fall under the exceptions of 1963 Rules, here they referred to the judgement on the case of Varun @ Gullu v. State of Haryana and others (2004) where it was stated that the authorities cannot act arbitrarily or without due application of the 1963 rules, the statutory power to grant parole is to be exercised objectively and by keeping in mind the intention of the legislature and purpose for the same. The court then referred to the judgement in the case of Bansilal v. State of Punjab (2016) where it was held that the security of state and maintenance of public order are not the same as maintenance of law and order, the distinction between public order and law and order is of the extent of the act on the people and society. Every breach of peace does not lead to public disorder and only an act which disturbs the life of the public at large affects the maintenance of public order. Taking these reasoning into consideration, the court held that merely on the ground of four other cases being registered against the petitioner, his parole application cannot be denied  the court observed that the grant of parole is a reformative process whereby a convict is reintroduced to normal life and so denying such benefit to the petitioner in spite of  the settled position of law and favourable recommendation by the Jail Superintendent, on the basis of the reasoning given by the District Magistrate is irrational.

Judgement:

The court quashed the order of the District Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate dated 11-03-2020. The District Magistrate was directed to reconsider the matter within a period of four weeks and pass the necessary order, by keeping in mind the observations made by this court.