Criminal Writ Petition No.1428 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No.1428 of 2010 Date of decision:- 29.10.2010 Chaman ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mr. A.S. Trikha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.M. Anand, Addl. A.G. Haryana. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of order (Annexure P-1) passed by the competent authority rejecting the request of petitioner for his release on agriculture parole under Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). Reply has been filed on behalf of State. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Petitioner has been undergoing life imprisonment in case FIR No.848 dated 17.12.1995, under Section 302 IPC read with 120- B IPC, Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon. He has already undergone 7 years 5 months and 7 days of sentence including under-trial period. The petitioner has already availed 30 weeks and five days parole and five weeks furlough during conviction period. His conduct remained satisfactory in the jail. Criminal Writ Petition No.1428 of 2010 -2- He applied for agriculture parole under the rules, which was forwarded by the Superintendent jail i.e. respondent No.2 alongwith all other documents to the District Magistrate, Faridabad for his recommendation as he was found eligible under the rules. The District Magistrate, Faridabad also recommended the release of petitioner on parole, however, the competent authority i.e. Commissioner Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon rejected the case of the petitioner for his release on parole. Parole can be granted under Section 3 of the Act, 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 temporally for a period specified in sub-section (2), any prisoner, if the State Government is satisfied that- (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 prisoner; or (d) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause. Criminal Writ Petition No.1428 of 2010 -3- (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) 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 sentence of a prisoner. (4) The State Government may, by notification, authorise any officer to exercise its powers under this section in respect of all or any other ground specified thereunder. Parole can be refused under Section 6 of the Act, 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 report of the District Magistrate, the State Government or an officer authorised 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. Hence, parole can be rejected only if release of the Criminal Writ Petition No.1428 of 2010 -4- petitioner is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. However, perusal of order, passed by the competent authority, Gurgaon, passed in this case, shows that the application for parole has been rejected on the ground that land is in the name of convict's father and not in the name of petitioner. However, merely on this ground case of petitioner for release on parole cannot be declined when otherwise he is eligible under the rules and duly recommended by Superintendent of Jail as well as by District Magistrate. In view of these facts, the impugned order rejecting parole case of petitioner by the competent authority cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same is, hereby, set aside. The respondents are directed to re-consider the case of present petitioner for his release on parole in the light of observations of this Court made above, as per the Act and the Rules, and on usual undertaking to be furnished by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petition is disposed of accordingly. October 29, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE