Crl.Misc.No.M-1775 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-1775 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 03, 2010 Dara Singh .....PETITIONER Versus The State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH --- Present: Mr.A.S. Trikha, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who has been convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life vide judgment dated 8.4.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra and is undergoing his sentence in District Jail, Kurukshetra, has filed the instant petition for directing the respondents to release him for few days on emergency parole to look after his ailing mother, who is to undergo eye operation. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner can be given the benefit of emergency parole for a few days under Section 3(1)(a) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') for the treatment of his mother. For the said relief, the daughter of the petitioner has moved an application to the Superintendent, District Jail, Kurukshetra, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P2, but the respondents are not considering her prayer on the Crl.Misc.No.M-1775 of 2010 -2- ground that the petitioner has not completed one year of sentence after conviction. Therefore, a direction be issued to the respondents to release the petitioner on emergency parole for the aforesaid purpose. Learned counsel argued that as far as emergency parole is concerned, the same can be granted at any time. He further argued that even otherwise this Court in Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(3) RCR (Crl.) 701 and Jagjit Kaur v. State of Haryana, 1997(1) RCR (Crl.) 252, has held that the benefit of parole cannot be denied to a convict on the ground that he has not completed one year of sentence after conviction and the instructions issued by the State Government to that effect will not override the provisions of the Act. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel and going through the aforesaid judgments, we do not find any force in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) of Section 10 and read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, the Haryana Government has framed the Rules, namely, Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 2007. Rule 4 of the said Rules specifically provides that a prisoner shall be entitled to apply for parole only after he has completed one year of his imprisonment after the conviction and has earned his first annual good remission under the Act. Admittedly, the petitioner has not completed one year of his imprisonment after the conviction and he has also not earned his first annual good remission under the Act. Therefore, in our view, he is not entitled to apply for the parole on the grounds mentioned in Section 3(1)(a) of the Act before expiry of one year period of sentence after conviction. However, under clause (a) of sub- Crl.Misc.No.M-1775 of 2010 -3- section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, a convict can be granted the emergency parole provided any member of his family is seriously ill. In the instant case, the left eye of the mother of the petitioner is to be operated, which is not a serious illness. The parole is a concession given to the convict on fulfilling certain conditions. The convict cannot claim the parole as a matter of right. Since the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions prescribed in the Rules, which have been framed under the Act in consonance with Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, this Court cannot issue the direction to entertain the application of the petitioner for the grant of benefit of emergency parole under the aforesaid provisions of the Act before completion of one year of his imprisonment after the conviction. Prior to the framing of the Rules, there were only the instructions which provide that a prisoner shall be entitled to apply for parole only after he has completed one year of his imprisonment after the conviction. This Court, in the aforesaid two judgments, while giving no weightage to those instructions, as the instructions cannot override the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, has held that the application of a convict for grant of parole cannot be rejected on the ground that he has not undergone one year's imprisonment after conviction. Thus, the ratio laid down by these judgments is not applicable after framing of the statutory rules, which prescribes a condition for making applications for grant of parole. Therefore, we are of the opinion that at this stage this Court cannot interfere in the matter and issue a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for releasing him on emergency parole for the treatment of his mother. Dismissed. However, it will be open for the petitioner to move an Crl.Misc.No.M-1775 of 2010 -4- application before the appropriate authority, after completion of one year's imprisonment, for considering his prayer to release him on parole under the provisions of the Act. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 03, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) vkg JUDGE