On the 28th of October, a Punjab & Haryana High Court bench led by Justice Anup Chitkara held that Article 21 eliminates any parole prohibitions if the petitioner is not entitled to such parole under the parole rules and the facts and circumstances of the case justify it.
Also Read : Centre decides to repeal three farm laws
In Naveen Kumar Vs. State of Haryana case, the petitioner was charged with violating sections 392, 397, 302, and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, as well as sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act. The petitioner applied to the court under Article 226 of the constitution for parole in honour of his son’s marriage. The convict initially submitted a written request for release to the Jail Superintendent but received no response. As a result, the current petition was filed.
The petitioner was ordered to be released on parole for fourteen days, subject to the petitioner posting the required bonds and satisfying the concerned authorities.
Although the petitioner is not eligible for parole under the parole rules, the Court clarified that the aura of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution would override any such restrictions if the facts and circumstances justified it.
As a result of the Court’s decision, the petitioner’s parole will be conditional on the petitioner surrendering all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, as well as the arms licence, to the appropriate authority during the release period, and not repeating or committing any other crime; and a violation will not entitle the petitioner to similar reliefs in the future.