Himachal Pradesh High Court: Extension of Parole is an Administrative Function

Must Read

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

WhatsApp Emails Delhi HC Judge Asking Her Not To Hear the Plea Challenging New Privacy Policy

The Delhi High Court raised strong objection to an E-mail sent by WhatsApp asking a judge not to hear the plea which challenges its new privacy policy. Justice Pratibha Singh said that the e-mail that was withdrawn later was totally unwarranted as she was anyway going to recuse from hearing the plea which was filed by Rohilla Chaitanya who contends that the new privacy policy of WhatsApp provides 360-degree access to a customer’s virtual activity and is against the fundamental right of privacy.

Follow us

In this case, (Sh. Dheeraj Verma vs State of H.P. and ors), the petitioner was serving life imprisonment. He filed a petition to extend his parole/release period. He also claimed the plea on the grounds of continuing his job. Also, he pled that he recover the losses authorised under the scheme to work outside jail. The Court rejected the plea. The reason was that the Petitioner had exhausted his parole limit.

Brief Facts of the Case 

The petitioner was convicted of Murder. The charges filed fell under Section 302 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Court charged the Petitioner with life imprisonment. The petitioner has been serving in jail ever since. 

The jail allowed the petitioner to work outside the jail under a government scheme. The Petitioner worked for eight years as a goldsmith, in this regard.

Further, the jail allowed him to work on the grounds that he has been serving time for 17 years. Also during that time, the authorities reported his good behaviour and conduct. While working outside, he has claimed to have never taken advantage of his liberty.

When the COVID pandemic transpired, the government granted parole leaves to some inmates. It was to relieve the crowding in the jail. This measure was taken to avoid spread within the jail. The petitioner was also released on a parole leave. He has requested for an extension in parole.

According to the petitioner, during the leave, he was unable to generate any income from his shop. He was not able to pay rent of his shop, due to the lockdown. This resulted in great financial loss and mental stress. Also, as the petitioner’s parole leave is over his shop cannot reopen. Thus, he approached the Court for the grant of an extension. 

The petitioner filed the petition before the Court, anticipating rejection from jail authorities. 

Arguments Before the Court

The Petitioner stated that the court has been favouring leaves to inmates. This is being done, to reduce the  number of inmates, and contain exposure to the virus. The petitioner further mentioned his good demeanour during his time out of jail. 

Thus, the Petitioner prayed that the court should accept the plea.

Court’s Observation

The Court referred to various precedents given by the Supreme Court. The judgments have deliberated on synonymous disputes. 

The precedents carried an identical opinion. It held that the decision about altering a plea fell in the jurisdiction of the authorities. These precedents also held that this question was not in the jurisdiction of the court.   

But, the judgements also deliberated that the court can intervene in case of certain reasons. First, where the pleader is facing injustice. For instance, where the grounds for rejecting the plea are not satisfactory. Second, where the authorities are not performing their duty. Also, in case of arbitrary use of power, the Court may intervene.  Further, the court can quash an illegal order as well.

The court took to observing humanistic grounds. The Court held that  suitable convicts should be able to mingle with society, from time to time. This would help them to better integrate themselves in the society, upon release. 

According to the Rules for Release, the petitioner was eligible for four weeks of parole. Yet, the jail allowed him six weeks of release which is the upper limit allowed.

Further, the Court read into the rules for parole and temporary release. The Court stated that the petitioner has already exhausted his release period. On the question of the Pandemic, the state has started to get back to normal. No cases were reported in the jail. either. 

Thus, the jail was considered to be safe. So, without any sufficient cause, the petitioner should return to complete his term. The Court also held that the Petitioner had not disputed the validity of the parole order. 

Court’s Judgment

Based on the aforesaid grounds, the court rejected the plea. The Court directed the petitioner to return to serve his time. 

The court proposed that the jail should deal and look into the issue of the Petitioner’s loss.

The court also allowed the petitioner to file a fresh petition to solve his issue. On the same, the Court directed  jail authorities to take the decision. The Court also directed authorities to consider humanitarian grounds for the same. 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

WhatsApp Emails Delhi HC Judge Asking Her Not To Hear the Plea Challenging New Privacy Policy

The Delhi High Court raised strong objection to an E-mail sent by WhatsApp asking a judge not to hear the plea which challenges its new privacy policy. Justice Pratibha Singh said that the e-mail that was withdrawn later was totally unwarranted as she was anyway going to recuse from hearing the plea which was filed by Rohilla Chaitanya who contends that the new privacy policy of WhatsApp provides 360-degree access to a customer’s virtual activity and is against the fundamental right of privacy.

TRP Scam Case: Bombay HC Extends Protection To Arnab Goswami and Other Employees Till the Next Hearing

On Friday, the Bombay High court extended the protection that was given, to Republic TV’s Editor in Chief Arnab Goswami and other employees of ARG Outlier Media Private Limited till January 29th in the alleged case of Television Rating Point manipulation. A status report was submitted by the police to the division bench of Justices S.S.Shinde and Manish Pitale by the Police on the ongoing case.

Plea Seeks FIR Against Maharashtra Minister Dhananjay Munde in Bombay HC for False Info

A plea has been filed in Bombay High Court seeking an FIR against Maharashtra minister Dhananjay Munde who is undergoing times of trouble due to his extra-marital affair. Recently, an FIR had been lodged against Munde by a woman, accusing him of raping her sister. Munde clarified that he was actually in a relationship with that woman and had two children. He accused the two women of blackmailing him.

Writ Petition for Compensation Accepted by Calcutta High Court 

Introduction The Petitioner Purna Ch. Biswas filed a Writ Petition with the complaint that their claims for a higher quantum of compensation have not yet...

No Members Could Be Disqualified Without Authorisation by Political Party: Gujarat High Court

Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated 28.10.2020 disqualified the petitioner and...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -