The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken strong exception to a case where parole was wrongly denied to a convict due to a grave error of mistaken identity. The court has imposed personal costs on a Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) and a Station House Officer (SHO) for what it termed a "serious error" in the administration of justice.
Court's Stern Rebuke and Order of Costs
Justice Sandeep Moudgil of the High Court pronounced the order, directing the SSP of Mansa and the SHO of Sardulgarh police station to personally pay a cost of Rs 15,000. The amount is to be deposited with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks. The court's decision came while hearing a plea filed by convict Balwinder Singh, who is currently serving a life sentence.
The core of the issue was the police's incorrect report that opposed Balwinder Singh's parole application. The authorities mistakenly identified him as being involved in another criminal case registered at the Sardulgarh police station. This erroneous report became the basis for denying him parole.
The Facts of the Case: A Clear Case of Mistaken Identity
Balwinder Singh had sought parole for a period of six weeks. However, the police verification report submitted to the district magistrate stated that he was an accused in a case under Sections 452, 323, 324, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Sardulgarh police station on March 29, 2021. Based on this adverse report, the district magistrate rejected his parole application on August 31, 2023.
Upon challenge in the High Court, it was conclusively established that this was a case of mistaken identity. The Balwinder Singh seeking parole was not the same person accused in the 2021 Sardulgarh case. The court noted that the police officials failed to conduct a proper verification, leading to a denial of the convict's rightful consideration for parole.
Judicial Scrutiny and the Path Forward
The High Court meticulously examined the records, including the description of the accused in the 2021 FIR and the appellant's details. The mismatch was clear and undeniable. The court set aside the district magistrate's order rejecting parole and sent the matter back for a fresh decision.
The district magistrate has now been directed to decide the parole application afresh, based on a correct police report, within two weeks. This directive ensures that Balwinder Singh's request is evaluated on its actual merits, free from the earlier factual inaccuracy.
The imposition of personal costs on the senior police officers underscores the judiciary's intolerance towards administrative lapses that affect personal liberty, even for convicts eligible for parole. The ruling highlights the critical importance of due diligence and accuracy in police verification processes, especially in matters concerning judicial discretion and the rights of inmates.
