IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. W.P. No. 397 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 15.02.2011 Manoj .... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) Petitioner Manoj, who is a life convict and is confined in District Jail, Jind, has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 12.2.2011 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Superintendent, District Jail, Jind, whereby his prayer for temporary release on parole to attend the marriage of his brother has been declined, on the ground that on 27.8.2010, he was awarded a major punishment under para 630 of the Punjab Jail Manual and on 30.9.2010, the said punishment was judicially appraised by the District & Sessions Judge, Jind. It has been further observed that in view of Rule 9 (ii) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners(Temporary Release) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules'), parole case of a convict, who has been awarded a major jail punishment under para 630 of the Punjab Jail Crl. W.P. No. 397 of 2011 -2- Manual, can be initiated after completion of one year from the date of punishment. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any merit in this petition. It has not been disputed before us that on 27.8.2010, the petitioner was awarded a major jail punishment, as defined in para 630 of the Punjab Jail Manual, which has been judicially appraised by the District & Sessions Judge, Jind, on 30.9.2010. Undisputedly, from the date of aforesaid jail punishment, one year has not expired and in view of Rule 9 (ii) of the Rules, at this stage, parole case of the petitioner cannot be initiated on any ground. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order, passed by the Superintendent, District Jail, Jind. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 15, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE