Criminal Misc. No. M-5325 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-5325 of 2009 Date of Decision:17.04.2009 Mrs. Radha .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Radha under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 seeking extension for parole. The brief facts are that pursuant to the directions of this Court, the petitioner was granted parole for four weeks on 30.1.2009. The latest medical records dated 21.2.2009 and 2.2.2009 revealed that she was suffering from high blood pressure and was advised absolute bed rest and regular health check-ups. Earlier, she gave birth to two children through Caesarian Section and this time also the Doctor declared that she will have to undergo through the same Section. Due to her advanced pregnancy coupled with the fact that she is not keeping well, the parole of four weeks granted to her be extended by at least three months. Criminal Misc. No. M-5325 of 2009 -2- In reply filed by the State, it has been inter-alia pleaded that as directed by this Court, Medical Board was constituted for her examination. She was examined by a Medical Board consisting of Dr. V. Yadav, SMO (Medical Specialist), Dr. Savita Yadav, SMO (Gynecologist) and Dr. Kapil Kapoor, Medical Officer ( Pediatric Specialist) vide Annexure R.1. Dr. V. Yadav, Medical/ Cardiac Specialist of B.K. General Hospital, Faridabad had opined that presently no active physician/ cardiac intervention is required as her condition is normal. Dr. Savita Yadav SMO (Gynecologist) has also opined that no active Gynecologist intervention is required for the female convict. Dr. Kapil Kakkar of the same hospital after examining the baby gave the opinion that she requires no active pediatric intervention vide Annexure R.2. In these premises, this petition may be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. As follows from the reply, which has gone controverted by the petitioner, the petitioner as well as the child are normal. In view of this state of their health, prima-facie no case is made out for extending the parole period. Sequelly, this petition is dismissed. April 17, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No