Criminal Misc. No. M-9486 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-9486 of 2009 Date of Decision:25.05.2009 Ranbir Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. H.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Ranbir Singh under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking four weeks parole for the repair of his house under Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 as well as for quashing/ setting aside the impugned order dated 31.12.2008 Annexure P.5 passed by respondent No.1. As averred in this petition, as per Annexure P.2 (photographs), the walls of the petitioner's house have developed cracks. Respondent No.1 has rejected his parole case despite the fact that as per inquiry report, his house is in need of necessary maintenance and there is no apprehension of breach of peace in any manner. In reply filed by the respondents, it has been averred that in compliance with the order of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. No.15930-M of 2003, the petitioner was released on four weeks' parole for the purpose of house repair on 8.9.2003. He has violated Criminal Misc. No. M-9486 of 2009 -2- the parole rules and was involved in case FIR No.188 dated 19.9.2003 under Sections 148/149/186/353/307/506 of IPC and 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Sadar Rohtak in which he was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. It is further mentioned that this Court has passed an order dated 21.7.2005 Annexure R.2 in Criminal Misc. No.50145-M of 2004 that “the petitioner is a professional gangster involved in more than one cases. No case for the release of the petitioner on parole is made out. Dismissed.” I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Section3(1)(d) 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 - (a) xxx xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx xxx (d) It is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause.” It is plain and patent from the above language that the legislature has made use of the word `may'. Thus, in the semantics of this Section the State Government may or may not release a convict on parole. Criminal Misc. No. M-9486 of 2009 -3- Here in this case, at an earlier occasion when four weeks' parole was granted in favour of the petitioner for carrying out the repair of his house on 8.9.2003, he contravened the parole rules and was involved in case FIR No.188 ibid, which ultimately culminated in his conviction and sentence on 9th November, 2004. The learned trial Court in the judgment dated 9.11.2004, has observed as under:- “Life imprisonment means imprisonment for throughout remaining period of life. Since accused Ranbir alias Faouji (referring to the petitioner) was undergoing life imprisonment at the time of this occurrence, huge quantity of arms and ammunition were recovered from him, as well as, his other co-accused. He along with his other co-accused dare devily attacked the police party. They have faced number of criminal trials and they seem to be gangsters. So, accused Ranbir Singh is not entitled for any suspension or remission of sentence under Section 432 Cr.P.C. It is also not a case where he is entitled for any commutation of sentence by the appropriate government under Section 433 Cr.P.C. So, in these circumstances, if the appropriate government at any time, considers for remission of his sentence, it will be desirous to consider all these aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case in hand.” This Court in order dated 21.7.2005 Annexure R.2 passed in Criminal Misc. No.50145-M of 2004 has observed that “the petitioner is a professional gangster involved in more than one cases. No case for the release of the petitioner on parole is made out. Dismissed.” Taking into Criminal Misc. No. M-9486 of 2009 -4- consideration such conduct of the petitioner, I do not deem it appropriate to grant him parole as sought for. Sequelly, this petition is dismissed. May 25, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No