Crl.W.P.No.1781 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.W.P.No.1781 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 01, 2010 Kuldeep .....PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH --- Present: Mr.R.K. Bagga, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Chahal, Addl. A.G., Haryana. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who has been convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life vide judgment dated 24.11.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat and is undergoing his sentence in Central Jail, Ambala, has filed the instant petition for directing the respondents to release him on Agriculture parole for six weeks under Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). It is the case of the petitioner that he had moved an application for Agriculture parole to respondent No.3, which, in turn was forwarded to respondent No.4, with a copy to the Divisional Commissioner, Ambala Division, who is the competent authority. The said application has been rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, Ambala Division on the ground Crl.W.P.No.1781 of 2010 -2- that since there is enmity in the family of convict (petitioner), he may commit any crime in the village after coming on parole. It is further the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner is owning 8 bighas of land in the village and the presence of the petitioner is very much necessary to enable him to perform necessary agriculture work. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent authority has arbitrarily rejected the parole case of the petitioner without any basis or valid reasons. Counsel further prays that the petitioner is neither a habitual offender nor a previous convict, hence, declining of parole to the petitioner at this stage will defeat the very purpose of the Act. Therefore, a direction be issued to the respondents to release the petitioner on Agricultural parole for the aforesaid purpose. Pursuant to notice of motion, a written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents, which is taken on record. In the written statement, the respondents have taken the stand that since the District Magistrate, Sonepat had not recommended the parole case of the petitioner, the same has been rightly rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, Ambala Division as there is enmity in the family of convict and the convict may commit any crime in the village in case he is temporarily released on parole. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the petition as well as written statement filed by the respondents, we are of the opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. In our view, the release of a convict on parole is a wing of reformative process. Section 3 of the Act has been enacted as a reformative process. It provides an opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into a useful Crl.W.P.No.1781 of 2010 -3- citizen. Until and unless sufficient material is available with the authorities giving solid reasons for declining the temporary release of a convict on parole, such benefit should not be declined merely on flimsy grounds. In the instant case, the respondent authority has rejected the parole case of the petitioner only on the ground that there is enmity in the family of the petitioner and in case he is temporarily released on parole, he may commit any crime in the village. In our opinion, the respondent authority has not explained as to whether there is any enmity between the family of convict and the family of the complainant, and whether the petitioner had been previously convicted for committing any crime in the village. Neither the District Magistrate, Sirsa nor the Divisional Commissioner, Ambala Range have placed on record any material to the effect that there is enmity in the family of the petitioner and he may commit any crime in the village after coming on agriculture parole. Thus, rejecting the parole case of the petitioner on this ground, without any basis, is not justified at all. Hence, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.6.2010 (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 November 01, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) vkg JUDGE