Sunday, January 20, 2019

Posted at: May 17, 2018, 12:01 AM; last updated: May 17, 2018, 12:01 AM (IST)

Court: Kin can stand surety for convict’s parole

Guarantee of govt servant, elected local body member not must

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 16

Making it clear that guarantee of a government servant or elected local body member is not a prerequisite for granting parole, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a family member’s surety will suffice.

The ruling by Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain came on a petition filed against Haryana and other respondents by Amarjit, a convict. He was aggrieved by an order dated April 5, by which the Commissioner, Hisar Division, accepted the petitioner’s request for grant of parole.

But at the same time, the Commissioner directed the District Magistrate to release the petitioner after taking guarantee of government servant or elected local body member.

Referring to the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, counsel for the petitioner submitted that surety would range from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 2 lakh as per discretion of the releasing authority while accepting surety bonds in case of convicts in cases of murder or other heinous crime.

The counsel submitted that the Rules did not specify the necessity to take guarantee from a government servant, panch, sarpanch or any other elected local body member.

Taking note of the assertions, Justice Jain asserted that the petitioner was justified in his stand by submitting that he would not be in a position to get himself released on parole in case of refusal by the government servant or elected local body member for standing as surety for him.

“Since the contention raised by the petitioner seems to be logical, the condition imposed in the impugned order dated April 5 is hereby set aside. I it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on parole for the period mentioned in the impugned order on furnishing the surety of his family member, who is a local resident of Charkhi Dadri, to the District Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri,” the Bench concluded.

The High Court had been saying all along in a number of judgments that denial of parole, which was a valuable right to a convict, on flimsy considerations had to be deprecated.


All readers are invited to post comments responsibly. Any messages with foul language or inciting hatred will be deleted. Comments with all capital letters will also be deleted. Readers are encouraged to flag the comments they feel are inappropriate.
The views expressed in the Comments section are of the individuals writing the post. The Tribune does not endorse or support the views in these posts in any manner.
Share On