For Parole, Inmate Can’t Claim Parity With Co-Convicts In FIR: P & H HC Says ‘Subjective Satisfaction’ To Be Arrived At By Police, DM [Read Order]

first_imgNews UpdatesFor Parole, Inmate Can’t Claim Parity With Co-Convicts In FIR: P & H HC Says ‘Subjective Satisfaction’ To Be Arrived At By Police, DM [Read Order] Mehal Jain29 Aug 2020 1:04 AMShare This – xThe Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that for being released on parole, the convict “cannot claim parity with his co-convicts in the FIR” for the “role played by each accused in the crime cannot be exactly identical”. Noting that the nature and gravity of the offences in other cases in which such accused/convict is involved is also to be assessed independently in light of the…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that for being released on parole, the convict “cannot claim parity with his co-convicts in the FIR” for the “role played by each accused in the crime cannot be exactly identical”. Noting that the nature and gravity of the offences in other cases in which such accused/convict is involved is also to be assessed independently in light of the chances of such person indulging in committing crime again, if released on parole, Justice H. S. Madaan asserted that “subjective satisfaction” is to be arrived at by the police authorities and the concerned District Collector in releasing the convict on parole. The Single Judge was considering a plea for setting aside the April 9 order passed by the District Magistrate and grant of parole to the petitioner in view of the Supreme Court guidelines/Government notification providing that the prisoners undergoing imprisonment under seven years should be released in light of the Pandemic. The petitioner was convicted in connection with a FIR dated May 10, 2019 under Sections 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to public servant), 353 (assault/criminal force against public servant), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of duty), 147 (rioting), 149 (unlawful assembly) and 333 (grievous hurt to public servant) IPC, for a period of six years, and his appeal, though admitted, is pending hearing in the High Court. The petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest in the case and has not been released on bail or parole. “The petitioner had applied for parole but the same was denied by the Collector for the reason that the petitioner has another case pending against him and he may influence the witnesses. According to the petitioner, the prosecution witnesses have since been examined in that case. Furthermore, in the FIR, seven persons were convicted and out of those five were granted parole and one of them, who was granted parole, namely, (…), was having more cases pending against him and still he was granted parole”, recorded the Single Bench. Justice Madaan further noted the reply of the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police, contending that on the application of the petitioner for grant of parole for six weeks, an enquiry was conducted by the local police and it was found that the petitioner is facing trial in another similar case and if he is granted concession of parole, then he can threaten or induce the witnesses and indulge in committing other offences, and therefore his name was not recommended for release of parole. Accordingly, the bench arrived at the conclusion that the impugned order dated 9.4.2020 passed by the Collector is “quite detailed and well reasoned” and it “does not come out to be suffering from any illegality or infirmity”. “It is clearly mentioned in the order that a meeting of High Powered committee was held under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rajeev Sharma of this Court on 30.3.2020 and cases of the jail inmates for release on parole was considered. Since the petitioner was serving imprisonment for six years and involved in other cases, he was not released on parole”, noted the bench. In dismissing the plea, Justice Madaan proceeded to observe that “the petitioner is claiming parity with his co-convicts in the FIR but there cannot be any parity for such like reason”, adding that the role played by each accused in the crime cannot be exactly identical. Click Here To Download Order[Read Order] Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more