Crl. W. P. No.1660 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. W. P. No.1660 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : September 02, 2011 Rajesh Kumar @ Khanna .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Rajesh Kumar @ Khanna has filed the instant writ petition for release on parole for six weeks. The petitioner is convict under Section 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code. He applied for parole for repair of house. His prayer for parole has been rejected by Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon vide order dated 19.01.2011 (Annexure P-1). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that house owned Crl. W. P. No.1660 of 2011 (O&M) 2 by petitioner's father requires repair, and therefore, the petitioner be released on parole. The contention, although apparently attractive, is completely misconceived and devoid of merit. Perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-1) reveals that the petitioner has four more brothers. The petitioner and his three other brothers are unmarried and only one brother is married. The house is owned by petitioner's father. Accordingly, four brothers of the petitioner are there to help their father for repairing the house, if any such help is required. On the other hand, petitioner's father himself can also get the house repaired. The petitioner himself is in jail and he has no wife or issue. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that petitioner's prayer for release on parole for house repair has been rightly declined. There is no infirmity in the impugned order Annexure P-1. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. September 02, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE