Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Conviction for Rioting and Hurt | Says First-Time Offenders May Be Released on Probation to Prevent Jail Stigma in Minor Offences
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Manisha Batra directed that a convict be released on probation instead of serving the remaining period of imprisonment. The Court modified the order of sentence, holding that the petitioner be released on furnishing personal bond and surety, subject to conditions of good behaviour and compliance as mandated by the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Court observed that the petition challenging the conviction was dismissed on merits, but the sentence was modified to grant probation in view of the statutory framework and judicial precedents.
The case arose out of FIR No. 23 dated 27.04.2016 registered at Police Station Bareta against Balvir Singh and others. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Budhlada, passed a judgment of conviction and order of sentence on 30.10.2019 in State versus Balvir Singh and others. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 148, 325, 323, 427, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a maximum period of one year along with a fine.
The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa. On 02.07.2025, the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of a criminal revision petition challenging both the conviction and sentence.
During the hearing before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner restricted submissions only to the grant of probation. It was submitted that the petitioner had already undergone one month and 17 days of imprisonment, had faced the rigors of litigation for nine years, and had no other criminal antecedents. The petitioner urged that he was leading a peaceful life with his family and therefore entitled to the benefit of probation.
The learned State counsel did not raise serious objection to the limited prayer for probation.
The matter before the Court was thus confined to the question of whether the petitioner was entitled to be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Court examined the statutory framework of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and the provisions of Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It noted that the Probation Act was enacted with a view to provide for the release of offenders of certain categories on probation or after due admonition, thereby preventing youthful offenders from being converted into hardened criminals.
The Court referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1972 AIR (SC) 2522, which held that the object of the Probation Act was to prevent association of youthful offenders with hardened criminals in jails, and to bring about correction and reformation instead of retributive justice. The Court also placed reliance on Isher Das v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1295, and Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar Biswas, 1974 AIR (SC) 1818, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that probation was a reformative measure intended to rehabilitate amateur offenders in society.
The Court recorded that the sole intention of the legislature in passing probation laws was to give a chance of reformation to offenders who were not hardened criminals, but who had committed offences under momentary weakness or temptation. By placing them on probation, the stigma of jail life and the contaminating influence of prison inmates could be avoided, while also addressing the problem of overcrowding in prisons.
Justice Manisha Batra observed: “The Probation of Offenders Act was enacted in 1958 with a view to provide for the release of offenders of certain categories on probation or after due admonition and for matters connected therewith. The object of the Act is to prevent the conversion of youthful offenders into obdurate criminals as a result of their association with hardened criminals of mature age in case the youthful offenders are sentenced to undergo imprisonment in jail.”
The Court further recorded: “Modern criminal jurisprudence recognizes that no one is a born criminal and that a good many crimes are the product of socio-economic milieu. Although not much can be done for hardened criminals, considerable stress has been laid on bringing about reform of young offenders not guilty of very serious offences and of preventing their association with hardened criminals.”
On the reformative nature of probation, the Court cited Supreme Court authority and observed: “The Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative measure and its object is to reclaim amateur offenders who, if spared the indignity of incarceration, can be usefully rehabilitated in society. A jail term should normally be enough to wipe out the stain of guilt but the sentence which the society passes on convicts is relentless.”
The Court further recorded: “The ignominy commonly associated with a jail term and the social stigma which attached to convicts often render the remedy worse than the disease and the very purposes of punishment stand in the danger of being frustrated.”
Justice Batra stated: “The sole intention of the legislature in passing probation laws is to give persons of a particular type a chance of reformation, which they would not get if sent to prison. The types of persons, who are in the contemplation of the legislature under the probation law are those who are not hardened or dangerous criminals, but those who have committed offences under some momentary weakness of character or some tempting situation.”
On the scope of the Court’s power under Section 4 of the Probation Act, it was observed: “Section 4 of the Probation Act postulates that when any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of the opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond.”
The Court noted the petitioner had already undergone more than one month of imprisonment, had faced a prolonged trial, and was not involved in any other criminal case. It was observed: “In view of the discussion as made above and also considering the attendant facts and circumstances of the case and legal position, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by detaining him into jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence and instead of that, he be released on probation.”
The High Court dismissed the revision petition on merits but modified the order of sentence to release the petitioner on probation. Justice Batra directed: “Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner be released on probation on his furnishing personal bond (within one month) in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the conditions that he would keep the peace and be of good behaviour, for a period of one year from the date of passing of this order and shall disclose his present address and phone number before the trial Court in the form of an affidavit at the time of furnishing bonds.”
It was further stated: “Needless to mention that in case, he is found to be indulged in any illegal activities, the sentence awarded to him by the appellate Court shall stand revived.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: H. S. Mann, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
Case Title: Gora Singh versus State of Punjab
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:107713
Case Number: CRR No. 1903 of 2025 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Manisha Batra
