CRWP-386-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Bhagat Singh @ Ballu State of Haryana & others CORAM: Present: GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. 1. The petitioner assails order dated his claim for grant of parole for declined by the Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. 2. A few facts necessary to notice petitioner stands convicted for having committed offences under Sections vide judgment dated Judge, Rohtak in a matter arising out of FIR No. registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak 323, 325, 326, 452, 120 has been sentenced as under: Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-386 Date of Decision: Bhagat Singh @ Ballu Versus State of Haryana & others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. The petitioner assails order dated 29.10.2024 (Annexure P his claim for grant of parole for 8 weeks declined by the Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of this petition are ioner stands convicted for having committed offences under Sections 302, 307, 326, 449, 326, 34 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act vide judgment dated 21.09.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak in a matter arising out of FIR No. registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak 323, 325, 326, 452, 120-B, 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act has been sentenced as under: Offence Conviction Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Section 307 IPC 10 years RI Section 449 IPC 10 years RI Section 326 read with 34 IPC 5 years RI Section 25 of the Arms Act 2 years RI IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 386-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.02.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondents GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana. 29.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) vide which weeks to meet his family has been declined by the Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. for disposal of this petition are that the ioner stands convicted for having committed offences punishable 302, 307, 326, 449, 326, 34 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act 21.09.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak in a matter arising out of FIR No.179 dated 03.06.2007 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak, under Sections 302, 307, B, 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and Fine In default of fine Life Imprisonment Rs.5000/- 3 months RI Rs.5000/- 3 months RI Rs.5000/- 3 months RI Rs.2000/- 2 months RI Rs.1000/- 1 month RI 1) vide which to meet his family has been that the punishable 302, 307, 326, 449, 326, 34 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act 21.09.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions 03.06.2007 302, 307, and In default VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.14 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-386-2025 (O&M) 3. While the petitioner was serving his sentence, he had been granted furlough for 3 weeks and was released on direction to surrender back on and absconde and was lodged in jail on 16.04.2019, the petitioner is in jail 4. Though case of the petitioner for grant of parole for 10 weeks was initiated by the Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak, but the Magistrate, Rohtak did not recommend release of the petitioner on parole while observing that the petitioner stands involve crime i.e. murder and that in case released on parole, he can abscond and on account of which there could be danger order. The District Magistrate in his report dated observed that th furlough did not surrender back and and that the following three cases have been registered against him: (i) (ii) (iii) 5. The Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak upon the aforesaid report rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of parole. 2 2025 (O&M) While the petitioner was serving his sentence, he had been granted furlough for 3 weeks and was released on direction to surrender back on 27.03.2014, but he did not surrender back and absconded. It was only after about 5 years that he came to be arrested and was lodged in jail on 16.04.2019. 16.04.2019, the petitioner is in jail. case of the petitioner for grant of parole for 10 weeks was initiated by the Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak, but the Magistrate, Rohtak did not recommend release of the petitioner on parole while observing that the petitioner stands involve crime i.e. murder and that in case released on parole, he can abscond and on account of which there could be danger order. The District Magistrate in his report dated observed that the petitioner on an earlier occasion when did not surrender back and remained absconding for and that the following three cases have been registered against him: FIR No.181 dated 17.04.2014 registered at P.S. Civil Lines, Rohtak, under Section 8, 9 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners Act (Temporary Release) Act; FIR No.117 dated 14.04.2019 registered at P.S. Civil Lines, Rohtak, under Section 25 of the Arms Act; & FIR No.118 dated 16.04.2019 Rohtak, under Section 174-A IPC. The Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak upon the aforesaid report rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of While the petitioner was serving his sentence, he had been granted furlough for 3 weeks and was released on 05.03.2014 from jail with a 27.03.2014, but he did not surrender back It was only after about 5 years that he came to be arrested 16.04.2019. Ever since his re-arrest on case of the petitioner for grant of parole for 10 weeks was initiated by the Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak, but the District Magistrate, Rohtak did not recommend release of the petitioner on parole while observing that the petitioner stands involved in a case of heinous crime i.e. murder and that in case released on parole, he can abscond and on account of which there could be danger of breach of peace and public order. The District Magistrate in his report dated 21.10.2024 further e petitioner on an earlier occasion when released on remained absconding for 1820 days and that the following three cases have been registered against him: 17.04.2014 registered at P.S. Civil Lines, Rohtak, under Section 8, 9 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners Act (Temporary Release) Act; 14.04.2019 registered at P.S. Civil Lines, Rohtak, under Section 25 of the Arms Act; & FIR No.118 dated 16.04.2019 registered at P.S. Civil Lines, A IPC. The Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak while relying upon the aforesaid report rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of While the petitioner was serving his sentence, he had been granted 05.03.2014 from jail with a 27.03.2014, but he did not surrender back It was only after about 5 years that he came to be arrested on case of the petitioner for grant of parole for 10 weeks was District Magistrate, Rohtak did not recommend release of the petitioner on parole d in a case of heinous crime i.e. murder and that in case released on parole, he can abscond and public 21.10.2024 further released on 1820 days 17.04.2014 registered at P.S. Civil Lines, Rohtak, under Section 8, 9 of the Haryana Good Conduct 14.04.2019 registered at P.S. Civil Lines, Civil Lines, while relying upon the aforesaid report rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.14 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-386-2025 (O&M) 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing up submitted that the petitioner cannot be that in any case he has now been behind bars continuously since the last more than 5 years and has not committed any offence during the said period and as such, deser 7. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submitted that having regard to the track record of the petitioner, who remained absconding for a good 5 years on an earlier occasion when he had been granted furlough, there is every likelihood that in case granted parole, the petitioner may abscond again. 8. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court 9. Sections 3 and 8 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners Act (Temporary Release) Act “3. (1) (2) (3) (4) 3 2025 (O&M) Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing up submitted that the petitioner cannot be termed as ‘hardcore prisoner’ that in any case he has now been behind bars continuously since the last more than 5 years and has not committed any offence during the said period and as such, deserves to be granted parole. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submitted that having regard to the track record of the petitioner, who remained absconding for a good 5 years on an earlier occasion when he had been granted furlough, there is ery likelihood that in case granted parole, the petitioner may abscond We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court ections 3 and 8 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners Act (Temporary Release) Act providing for release of a convict on parole read as under: The competent authority shall grant regular parole to a convicted prisoner subject to such conditions and procedure as specified under sections 11 and 12. The period for which a convicted prisoner may be released under this section shall be ten weeks in a calendar year cumulatively and the convicted prisoner may avail it in two parts: Provided that in case of delivery of a female convicted prisoner, the period of release und months, beginning from one month prior to the expected date of delivery as certified by the Medical Officer of the jail. Convicted prisoner who has not completed one year of sentence after conviction shall not be eligible for regular parole: Provided that the restriction shall not be imposed on old aged convicted prisoner of seventy years or above in case of male and sixty-five years or above in case of female. The report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police orthe Superintendent of Police, as the case may be and Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing upon the petition termed as ‘hardcore prisoner’ and that in any case he has now been behind bars continuously since the last more than 5 years and has not committed any offence during the said ves to be granted parole. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submitted that having regard to the track record of the petitioner, who remained absconding for a good 5 years on an earlier occasion when he had been granted furlough, there is ery likelihood that in case granted parole, the petitioner may abscond We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. ections 3 and 8 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners Act (Temporary providing for release of a convict on parole read as under: The competent authority shall grant regular parole to a convicted prisoner subject to such conditions and procedure as specified under sections 11 and 12. a convicted prisoner may be released be ten weeks in a calendar year cumulatively and the convicted prisoner may avail it in two Provided that in case of delivery of a female convicted prisoner, the period of release under this section shall be six months, beginning from one month prior to the expected date of delivery as certified by the Medical Officer of the jail. Convicted prisoner who has not completed one year of sentence after conviction shall not be eligible for regular Provided that the restriction shall not be imposed on old aged convicted prisoner of seventy years or above in case five years or above in case of female. The report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police orthe Superintendent of Police, as the case may be and on the petition and that in any case he has now been behind bars continuously since the last more than 5 years and has not committed any offence during the said Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submitted that having regard to the track record of the petitioner, who remained absconding for a good 5 years on an earlier occasion when he had been granted furlough, there is ery likelihood that in case granted parole, the petitioner may abscond ections 3 and 8 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners Act (Temporary VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.14 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-386-2025 (O&M) (5) 8. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no convicted prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act if, on the report of the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner of Police or the Superintendent of Police or ot competent authority is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order or cause reasonable apprehension of breach of peace.” 10. Coming to the facts occasion i.e. in the year 2014 had been granted furlough for 3 weeks only w.e.f. 05.03.2014 to availing the said furlough and remained absconding for more than and came to be arrested only on that ever since 2019 been behind bars and is not stated to have committed any offence during the said period. years and 5 months. 11. While 2 of the 3 cases very conduct of the petitioner in having absconded i.e. 17.04.2014 14.04.2019 12. The District Magistrate seems to have made observations against the grant of parole to the petitioner mainly on the 4 2025 (O&M) recommendations by the District Magistrate shall be submitted to the competent authority within time limit this Act, for temporary release of a convicted prisoner on regular parole. The period of release under this section shall not count towards the actual sentence of a prisoner. No ordinary remission shall be granted for this period. xx xx Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no convicted prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act if, on the report of the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner of Police or the Superintendent of Police or otherwise, the State Government or the competent authority is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order or cause reasonable apprehension of breach of peace.” oming to the facts, while it is correct that the petitioner on an earlier occasion i.e. in the year 2014 had been granted furlough for 3 weeks only 05.03.2014 to 27.03.2014, but he did not surrender back after availing the said furlough and remained absconding for more than and came to be arrested only on 16.04.2019. However, this Court notice that ever since 2019 i.e. after the petitioner’s re been behind bars and is not stated to have committed any offence during the said period. He has already undergone a total custody of more than 12 years and 5 months. While 2 of the 3 cases registered against the petitioner pertain to the same very conduct of the petitioner in having absconded i.e. 17.04.2014 and FIR No.118 dated 16.04.2019 14.04.2019 was lodged for offence under the Arms Act. The District Magistrate seems to have made observations against the grant of parole to the petitioner mainly on the ground recommendations by the District Magistrate shall be submitted to the competent authority within time limit as specified under this Act, for temporary release of a convicted prisoner on The period of release under this section shall not count towards the actual sentence of a prisoner. No ordinary remission shall be granted for this period. xx Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no convicted prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act if, on the report of the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner of Police or the herwise, the State Government or the competent authority is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order or cause reasonable apprehension of breach of peace.” it is correct that the petitioner on an earlier occasion i.e. in the year 2014 had been granted furlough for 3 weeks only 27.03.2014, but he did not surrender back after availing the said furlough and remained absconding for more than 5 years 16.04.2019. However, this Court notices the petitioner’s re-arrest, he has continuously been behind bars and is not stated to have committed any offence during He has already undergone a total custody of more than 12 registered against the petitioner pertain to the same very conduct of the petitioner in having absconded i.e. FIR No.181 dated 16.04.2019, the third FIR No.117 dated was lodged for offence under the Arms Act. The District Magistrate seems to have made observations against the grant ground that the petitioner on an it is correct that the petitioner on an earlier occasion i.e. in the year 2014 had been granted furlough for 3 weeks only 27.03.2014, but he did not surrender back after 5 years s arrest, he has continuously been behind bars and is not stated to have committed any offence during He has already undergone a total custody of more than 12 registered against the petitioner pertain to the same 181 dated FIR No.117 dated The District Magistrate seems to have made observations against the grant that the petitioner on an VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.14 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-386-2025 (O&M) earlier occasion furlough. However, apart from the said incident of over the petitioner otherwise is neither involved in any other case affecting human body or hardcore criminal 13. In view of the above discussion and h the petitioner particularly the custody after his re than 5 years and the petitioner during the said period and criminal’ or a of parole. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for subject to his Magistrate/appropriate authority concerned. 14. In addition to the surety bonds, also furnished as surety, which in case of any default on the part of the petitioner pertaining to his timely surrender shall be forfeited. 13.02.2025 Vimal 5 2025 (O&M) earlier occasion which was 5 years back furlough. However, apart from the said incident of over the petitioner otherwise is neither involved in any other case affecting human body or property of any individual hardcore criminal. In view of the above discussion and having regard to the long custody of the petitioner particularly the custody after his re than 5 years and the fact that there is nothing adverse against the record of the petitioner during the said period and he criminal’ or a ‘hardcore prisoner’, the petitioner deserves the concession of parole. The impugned order dated 29.10.2024 side. The petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the Magistrate/appropriate authority concerned. In addition to the surety bonds, one FDR for an amount of Rs.50,000/ also furnished as surety, which in case of any default on the part of the petitioner pertaining to his timely surrender shall be forfeited. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: which was 5 years back had absconded while availing furlough. However, apart from the said incident of over-staying furlough, the petitioner otherwise is neither involved in any other case affecting property of any individual and is not a seasoned or aving regard to the long custody of the petitioner particularly the custody after his re-arrest, which is more there is nothing adverse against the record of he cannot be termed as a ‘habitual , the petitioner deserves the concession dated 29.10.2024 (Annexure P-1), as such, side. The petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for 8 weeks furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the District Magistrate/appropriate authority concerned. FDR for an amount of Rs.50,000/- be also furnished as surety, which in case of any default on the part of the petitioner pertaining to his timely surrender shall be forfeited. GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No had absconded while availing staying furlough, the petitioner otherwise is neither involved in any other case affecting and is not a seasoned or aving regard to the long custody of arrest, which is more there is nothing adverse against the record of cannot be termed as a ‘habitual , the petitioner deserves the concession , as such, weeks District be also furnished as surety, which in case of any default on the part of the VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.14 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document