Criminal Writ Petition No.1060 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No.1060 of 2010 Date of decision:- 01.10.2010 Harbans Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Manrai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG Punjab. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for releasing the petitioner on parole under Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act 1962 for a period of 28 days for the purpose of repairing of house. Reply has been filed on behalf of State. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. The petitioner has been undergoing rigorous imprisonment in FIR No.17 dated 31.1.1991, Police Station Jagraon, for offence under Section 302 IPC. He has applied for his release on parole. However, the same was declined by the competent authority on the ground that he remained absconding from parole earlier. Though, it has been mentioned in the order that he remained absconding for 59 days and however in the reply, filed on behalf of State it has been stated that in fact he remained absconding for a period of 2559 days i.e. from 6.8.1999 to 07.8.2006 and regarding Criminal Writ Petition No.1060 of 2010 -2- the same a complaint under Section 9 of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act 1962 was also filed against him, in which he was convicted and sentenced. Hence, the District Magistrate Ludhiana has not recommended the release of present petitioner on parole. It has also been mentioned in the order refusing parole to the petitioner that he is likely to come in contact with another accused Jeet Singh and both of them are likely to disturb public peace and likely to again abscond if release on parole. Hence, in view of these facts it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the competent authority under the Act and rules in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the petition, hence, the same, is hereby dismissed. October 01, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE