IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Writ Petition No.1737 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 8, 2010. Mukesh Kumar ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. H.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh, A.A.G., Haryana. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 30.08.2010, Annexure P2 passed by respondent No.1 whereby request of petitioner for grant of parole for agricultural operations has been rejected and further praying for issuance of directions to respondents to grant emergency parole for six weeks to petitioner for agricultural operations under Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short the ‘Act’). Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent-State. CRWP No.1737 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. Admitted facts are that, petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in FIR No.38 dated 01.04.2000, under Sections 498-A/304-B/302 IPC, Police Station Cheeka, District Kaithal by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide order dated 05.08.2002. He filed appeal against the said judgment, which was dismissed by this Court. Now petitioner is undergoing the sentence in the Central Jail, Ambala. Request of the petitioner for his release on agricultural parole was duly forwarded by Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala to District Magistrate, Jind and Divisional Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala vide his office letter No. 5430-31 dated 20.05.2010 as the petitioner was found entitled for the same as per the Act, the rules and the instructions. District Magistrate, Jind vide his office letter No. 2697 dated 06.07.2010 also recommended for release of the petitioner on parole for agricultural purposes. However, the request of petitioner was rejected by Divisional Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala on the ground that he has recently availed two weeks’ parole. Section 3 of the Act provides that a convict can be released on parole which reads as under:- “3. Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds. (1) The State Government may, in consultation with the District Magistrate or any other officer appointed in this behalf, by notification in the official gazette and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified in sub-section (2), any prisoner, if the State Government is satisfied that. 2 CRWP No.1737 of 2010 (a) a member of the prisoner’s family had died or is seriously ill or the prisoner himself is seriously ill; or (b) the marriage of prisoner himself, his son, daughter, grandson, grand-daughter, brother, sister, sister’s son or daughter is to be celebrated; or (c) the temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operation on his land or his father’s undivided land actually in possession of the petitioner. (d) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause. (2) The period for which a prisoner may be released shall be determined by the State Government so as not to exceed- (a) where the prisoner is to be released on the grounds specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1), three weeks; (b) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (b) or clause (d) of sub-section (1), four weeks; and (c) where the prisoner is to be released on the grounds specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1), six weeks; Provided that the temporary release under clause (c) can be availed more than once during the year, which shall not, however, cumulatively exceed six weeks. (3) The period of release under this section shall not count towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner. (4) The State Government may, by notification, authorize any officer to exercise its powers under this section in respect of all or any other ground specified thereunder.” Further Section 6 of the Act provides for the grounds on which the parole can be refused, which reads as under:- “6. Prisoners not entitled to be released in certain cases. – Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4, no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act if, on the 3 CRWP No.1737 of 2010 report of the District Magistrate, the State Government or an officer authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.” Bare perusal of Section 6 of the Act shows that release of petitioner on parole can be refused only on the ground that the same is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of the public order. However, in the present case request of the petitioner for his release on agricultural parole has not been declined on any of the grounds mentioned under Section 6 of the Act. Rather his request for his release on parole has been declined on the ground that he has recently availed two weeks parole. Admitted facts are that petitioner has not availed agricultural parole earlier. Rather he had availed good conduct two weeks furlough from 29.04.2010 to 14.05.2010. Furlough is granted to a convict under Section 4 of the Act after undergoing certain period of sentence after conviction. Hence, both are admissible to a convict under different provisions of the Act. Merely on the ground that petitioner has availed furlough earlier, his request for release on parole for agricultural purposes cannot be declined. Moreover, about seven months have passed since he returned after availing furlough. There are no allegations that conduct of the petitioner in the jail has not been remained satisfactory. Rather his conduct in the jail was satisfactory and hence, his case for releasing him on agricultural parole was recommended by Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala. In view of the fact that behaviour of the petitioner in the jail remained satisfactory, it cannot be said that 4 CRWP No.1737 of 2010 impugned order is justified on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 6 of the Act. Hence, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Hence, in view of these facts, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.08.2010, Annexure P2 passed by the competent authority refusing release of the petitioner on agricultural parole is set-aside. Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the present petitioner for his release on agricultural parole in the light of the observations of this Court made above, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 8, 2010. JUDGE 'om' Note: Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes / No 5