IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Writ No. 1053 of 2010 Date of decision : 29.6.2010 Rohtas …. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ….. Respondents Present : Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. KC. Gupta, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the respondents to release the petitioner on four weeks’ parole to look after his mother Smt. Bhullan Devi who is seriously ill. The petitioner and his brothers namely Dharampal and Mahavir were convicted in case FIR No.390 dated 7.8.2004 for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 216, 325, 207 read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad. Thereafter, the petitioner along with others was involved in another case FIR No.303 dated 9.6.2006 registered at Police Station Sadar Fatehabad for the offences under Sections 323, 325, 506, 427, 307, 147 and 148 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner has been convicted to rigorous Crl. Writ No. 1053 of 2010 [2] imprisonment for five years by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad. The petitioner is in custody since 27.7.2006 and he has undergone more than about three years and 11 months of imprisonment. The parole in the case has been sought on the ground that the mother of the petitioner is seriously ill. A reference has been made to the medical certificate (Annexures P2 and P3) in this regard. On notice, reply has been filed by Sh. Jai Dev Bishnoi, Superintendent Central Jail, Hisar on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. It is submitted that the petitioner has earlier availed six weeks’ parole for agricultural purposes from 10.12.2009 to 22.1.2010, four weeks’ parole for the repair of house from 23.2.2010 to 24.3.2010 and three weeks’ parole for agricultural purposes from 21.4.2010 to 13.5.2010. As such, the petitioner had availed 2 months 10 days (i.e. 70 days) parole during this calendar year. The petitioner had submitted an application for extension of parole to the learned District Magistrate, Fatehabad on 6.5.2010 with the medical certificate of his mother issued by a private Medical Officer, Dayal Hospital, Agroha Mod village Mod, Hisar which was not countersigned by the Chief Medical Officer, Hisar. The condition of the petitioner’s mother was not shown serious in the medical certificate (Annexure P2). The application was received in the office of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Hisar on 8.5.2010. The petitioner was informed that there was no provision under Rule 6 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner’s (Temporary Release) Rules, 2007 to extend parole. A copy of the same was sent to the learned District Magistrate, Fatehabad. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for the emergency parole as the emergency parole can be granted to a convict for specific Crl. Writ No. 1053 of 2010 [3] purposes which are mentioned in Section 3(1)(a) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner’s (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (“Act” – for short). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. The case of the petitioner is that he be granted four weeks’ parole as his mother is seriously ill. A perusal of the medical certificate (Annexure P2) shows that Dayal Hospital, Agroha Mod, Hisar had issued a certificate to the effect that Mrs. Bhullan Devi aged 69 years wife of Sh. Lal Chand was admitted with a doctor as a case of ‘left inguinal limph node (swelling and tenderness)’. She was on conservative treatment from 1.5.2010 till date. The other certificate (Annexure P3) is dated 10.11.2010. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it should be 10.5.2010. In the said certificate, it has merely been mentioned ‘refd. to higher centre for further treatment’. It may be noticed that the petitioner has already availed substantial parole in the present calendar year. Besides, the material placed on record has been observed by the respondent-authorities to show that the mother of the petitioner is not seriously ill. Therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act. In view of the above, the Crl. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE June 29, 2010 amit