'Least Expected From Senior Officer': P&H High Court Imposes ₹10K Cost On Inspector General Of Prisons For Denying Parole In 'Casual Manner'

In a strong rebuke to arbitrary administrative actions, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 on an Inspector General of Prisons for rejecting a parole application without proper application of mind

Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Subhas Mehla observed that, "the DM, Bhagalpur, by forwarding to the IG,...report of the CPO had made favourable recommendation for granting parole to the petitioner. However, a perusal of the impugned order passed by the IG reveals that the petitioner's prayer for parole was rejected by the IG by “relying” on the report of the DM, Bhagalpur."

"Since the DM, Bhagalpur had forwarded to the respondent authorities a report by the CPO which had recommended the petitioner's release on parole, it is clear that the IG passed the impugned order in the most casual manner and without any application of mind which is least expected from a senior officer of the rank of the IG", the bench added.

The plea was filed by a rape convict, who was convicted under Section 376 (3) IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years.

While undergoing the afore sentence, in the year 2023, the petitioner made an application for the grant of parole, to the respondent authorities, under Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short - the Act).

Since the petitioner was the original resident of district Bhagalpur, Bihar, the respondent authorities sought comments on the petitioner's application for parole from the District Magistrate (DM), Bhagalpur, Bihar.

Through a communication dated 15.04.2025 the DM, Bhagalpur forwarded to the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Prisons, Chandigarh a copy of the letter dated 07.03.2025 from the Chief Probation Officer, Home Department (Prisons and Rehabilitation Services), Navgachiya (CPO), as per which the CPO had recommended the grant of parole to the petitioner. Inspite of the same, through the impugned order dated 25.04.2025, the IG rejected the petitioner's prayer for parole.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that at the time of his conviction, the petitioner was about 21 years old. He does not have any other criminal antecedents. As on date he has undergone actual custody of 04 years, 03 months and 05 days.

"It also remains undisputed that while in custody his conduct has been good," the Court added.

Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, since there was no other reason brought on record by the respondents as to why the petitioner should be denied parole, in the light of the recommendations made by the CPO and DM, Bhagalpur.

The Court directed the release of the petitioner on parole for a period of 28 days from the date of his release. 

While disposing of the plea, the bench said, "The petition is allowed in the above terms with costs which are quantified at Rs.10,000/- to be borne personally by the officer who passed the impugned order."

Mr. Ujwal Anand, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Additional Public Prosecutor For UT, Chandigarh.

Title: XXXX v. XXXX