Parole; Kuldeep Vs. State of Haryana [Punjab-Haryana High Court, 12-07-2016]

Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 – Parole – Release from Custody – Conduct in Jail – Temporary Release and Interim Suspension  – Difference Between – Marriages of sisters of the applicant – Held, temporary release under the Act and interim suspension are entirely different and even though the provisions of the 1988 Act create a bar for temporary release on parole, the same would not be an impediment in a given case for temporary suspension of sentence of imprisonment. Nothing has been alleged as regards his conduct in jail – Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient to suspend his sentence of imprisonment for a period of one week from the date of his release so as to enable him to attend the marriage ceremonies of his sisters.

Interim Suspension of Sentence of Imprisonment


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

S.S. Saron and Lisa Gill JJ.

12 July, 2016

CRM No. 19814 of 2016 in CRA-D No. 1333-DB of 2014

Kuldeep and another vs. State of Haryana

Present: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate; for the applicant/appellant No. 2 – Anil . Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional AG, Haryana.

Learned counsel for the State has filed an affidavit of Sh. Daya Nand, Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak mentioning the period of imprisonment undergone by Anil (applicant/appellant No. 2), besides, another short reply to the petition by way of affidavit of Sh. Daya Nand, Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak. The same are taken on record.

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Criminal miscellaneous application has been filed seeking interim suspension of sentence of imprisonment of Anil (applicant/ appellant No. 2) for a period of one week to attend the marriages of his real sisters which are fixed for 14.7.2016.

According to learned counsel appearing for Anil (applicant/appellant No. 2), the marriages of Monika and Pooja who are real sisters of Anil (applicant/appellant No. 2) are to be solemnised on 14.07.2016. A reference has been made to the marriage invitation card (Annexure A-1). It is submitted that a speaking order (Annexure A-2) has been passed by the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Jind declining temporary release to the applicant/appellant No. 2 on the ground that he is a “hardcore prisoner”. It is submitted that declining of parole to the applicant/appellant No. 2 would not disentitle him from interim suspension of sentence of imprisonment in terms of Section 389 (2) Cr.P.C.

In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that Anil (applicant/appellant No. 2) stands convicted for the offence under Section 376-D and 506 read with 34 IPC, besides,

Sections 6 and 14 (3) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (‘POCSO Act’ – for short)

by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind vide her judgment and order dated 19.07.2014 and 23.07.2014. He has been sentenced vide order dated 23.07.2014 to 20 years of imprisonment, besides, pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offences under Section 376-D/34 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. He has also been sentenced to life imprisonment, besides, pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default thereof undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 14 (3) of POCSO Act. Lastly, he has been sentenced to two years, besides, pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week for the offence under Section 506/34 IPC.

Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 2 (aa) of

The Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988

(‘1988 Act’ – for short) as amended by the Haryana Good in Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Amendment Act, 2013, it is submitted that he is a ‘hardcore prisoner’. According to Section 2 (aa) (i) (7) of the 1988 Act as amended, a ‘hardcore prisoner’ means a person who has been convicted of the offences as enumerated in sub-clauses (1) to (14) of Clause (i) of Section 2 (aa). Clause (7) relates a person who has been convicted of rape under Sections 376-A, 376-D or 376-E IPC. In the circumstances, the special provision for ‘hardcore prisoners’ in terms of Section 5 A (2) of the 1988 Act as amended by the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Amendment Act, 2014 would apply. In terms of the said special provisions for temporary release of ‘hardcore prisoners’ it is provided that the notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4, no ‘hardcore prisoner’ shall be entitled to temporary release or furlough. In terms of the proviso to Section 5 A, it is provided that a ‘hardcore prisoners’ may be released on temporary basis to attend the marriage of his grand child or sibling; or death of his grand parents, parents, grand parents in-laws, parent-in-laws, sibling, spouse, child or grandchild under an armed police escort, for a period of forty eight hours to be decided by the concerned Superintendent Jail. The second proviso envisages further that a ‘hardcore prisoner’ may be released on temporary basis to attend the marriage of his daughter for 96 hours and for the marriage of his son for 72 hours under an armed police escort, to be decided by the concerned Superintendent of Jail. He shall intimate within 24 hours, the concerned District Magistrate or Superintendent of Police in this regard with full particulars of the ‘hardcore prisoner’ being so released. Therefore, in view of the amended provisions of the 1988 Act, it is submitted that applicant-appellant No. 2 is not entitled for interim suspension of sentence of imprisonment. However, it is not disputed that the marriages of sisters of Anil (applicant-appellant No. 2) are fixed for 14.07.2016. In the reply, it is submitted that the facts were verified on telephone from Sh. Chandi Ram, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Village Kot Kalan District Hissar that the marriages are fixed for 14.07.2016.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the matter. The application for temporary release has been opposed primarily on the ground that the prisoner i.e. Anil (applicant-appellant No. 2) is not entitled for release of temporary basis under the 1988 Act, therefore, he is not entitled for interim suspension of sentence as well. However, it may be noticed that interim suspension of sentence of imprisonment and temporary release under the 1988 Act are entirely different aspects though in substance the effect of both are the same i.e. release from custody.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in