Crl.W.P.No.1917 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.W.P.No.1917 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 01, 2010 Som Datt .....PETITIONER Versus The State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH --- Present: Ms. Sarla Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Chahal, Addl.A.G.,Haryana. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the impugned order dated 11.8.2010 (Annexure P1) passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on agriculture parole has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is having no land in his name nor he is cultivating any land. The petitioner has further prayed for issuing direction to the respondents to grant him agriculture parole in view of Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The petitioner, who is undergoing life imprisonment in District Jail, Faridabd in case FIR No.98 dated 18.5.2004, registered under Sections 302/323 IPC at Police Station Sadar Palwal, has been convicted and sentenced by Addl.Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide judgment/order dated 22.1.2009 for the offence under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 Crl.W.P.No.1917 of 2010 -2- IPC. It is the case of the petitioner that his father is owning 13 acres of agricultural land. In the said land, the petitioner is also having share. The father of the petitioner is an old person and is unable to do any agricultural work. The other brother of the petitioner is studying at a separate place. Therefore, the presence of the petitioner is very much necessary for cultivation and harvesting of paddy crop. The Panchayat has also recommended that in case the petitioner is released on parole, there will be no apprehension of breach of peace . However, the said request of the petitioner has been rejected by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon by the impugned order. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1, it has been averred that neither the petitioner is having any land in his name nor he has ever cultivated any land. In fact, the alleged land is owned by the father of the petitioner, who is cultivating the land. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the petitioner is a share-holder in large chunk of agriculture land owned by his father. The petitioner is inside the jail for about three years and three months and during the said period he has not committed any jail offence. The father of the petitioner is stated to be an old person and is unable to do the agricultural work. In our opinion, for cultivating and harvesting the crop, the presence of the petitioner is necessary. We are further of the view that it is always not necessary that the land should be in the name of the person seeking parole. Therefore, respondent No.1 was not justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole. The release of a convict on parole is a wing of reformative Crl.W.P.No.1917 of 2010 -3- process. Section 3 of the Act has been enacted as a reformative measure with an object to enable the prisoner to have family association or to perform certain family obligations and rituals. Until and unless sufficient material is available with the authorities giving solid reasons for declining the temporary release of a convict on parole, this benefit should not be declined. In the instant case, no such strong material or basis has been relied upon by the respondents while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on agriculture parole. Hence, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.8.2010 (Annexure P1) is quashed and the respondents are directed to re- consider the claim of the petitioner for temporary release on parole in light of the observations made in this order and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks' from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 01, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) vkg JUDGE