Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2021) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16299 = 2021(2) L.A.R. 462
Decided on: 05.07.2021
Present:
Mr. Brijesh Nandan, Advocate, for the petitioner (s).
Mr. H.S. Grewal, Addl. AG, Punjab.
Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3, 4 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Parole – Rejection of – Speaking order – Requirement of -- Impugned order rejecting parole merely states that in case prisoner is released on parole, he might help smugglers and there is threat to peace and security of the State – Held said order is non-speaking in nature – Order set aside and case remitted to the same authority for decision afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties -- Petitioner shall be at liberty to cite judgments he seeks to place reliance upon.
(Para 3)
Cases referred:
1. Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab and others, CRWP-799-2017.
2. Raj Singh v. State of Punjab, and CRWP-3574-2020.
***
RAJAN GUPTA, J. (ORAL) –
1. Case has been heard through video conferencing on account of COVID-19 Pandemic.
2. Challenge in the present petition is to order dated 10.4.2020 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Tarn Taran whereby plea of the petitioner for grant of parole has been rejected. He relies upon CRWP-799-2017; Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab and others and CRWP-3574-2020; Raj Singh v. State of Punjab in support of his case.
3. As we find that the impugned order merely states that in case prisoner is released on parole, he might help smugglers and there is threat to peace and security of the State, we feel that the said order is non-speaking in nature. We, thus, set aside the same and remit the case to the same authority for decision afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. Petitioner shall be at liberty to cite judgments he seeks to place reliance upon.
4. Disposed of.
Petition allowed.
********