CRWP No.1366 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No.1366 of 2010 Date of decision: 1.12.2010 Raj Pal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Hitesh Verma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed by petitioner Raj Pal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') seeking quashing of impugned order dated 9.4.2010, Annexure P-1 and for granting him parole to enable him to get repaired his house. Reply has already been filed on behalf of respondent-State. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Admitted facts are that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in case FIR No.90 dated 13.3.1999 registered under Sections 364, 392, 397, 302 IPC at Police Station City Yamunanagar by the then Additional Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri. He has undergone 11 years, 5 months and 2 days of actual CRWP No.1366 of 2010 2 sentence including under trial period. The parole case of the petitioner for house repair was initiated by Superintendent, District Jail Yamunanagar vide his letter Nos.879-80 dated 19.2.2010, and was sent to the District Magistrate, Saharanpur (UP). However, his parole case was rejected by the competent authority vide impugned order dated 9.4.2010 Annexure P-1 on the plea that he is a cunning criminal and there is every chance of his absconding. Section 3 of the Act provides that a convict can be released on parole, 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 temporarily 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 CRWP No.1366 of 2010 3 carrying on any other agricultural operation on his land or his father’s undivided land actually in possession of the petitioner. (d) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause. (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) can be availed more than once 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 the sentence of a prisoner. (4) The State Government may, by notification, CRWP No.1366 of 2010 4 authorize any officer to exercise its powers under this section in respect of all or any other ground specified thereunder.” Further Section 6 of the Act provides for the grounds on which the parole can be refused, 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 authorized 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.” Bare perusal of Section 6 of the Act shows that release of petitioner on parole can be refused only on the ground that the same is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of the public order. However, in the present case, request of the petitioner for his release on parole for house repair has not been rejected on any of the said two grounds. The case of the petitioner for release on parole was duly initiated by Superintendent, District Jail, Yamunanagar, as he was found entitled to the same as per the Act and the Rules and was sent to the District Magistrate, Saharanpur (UP) for verification and recommendation. However, the District Magistrate on the basis of report of Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur (UP) did not recommend his case for release on parole on the ground that he has been convicted for offences CRWP No.1366 of 2010 5 under Sections 302, 364, 392, 397 IPC and hence, there is every chance of his absconding. Hence, the request of the petitioner for releasing him on parole was declined by the competent authority. No other reason has been given in the impugned order for refusing parole to the petitioner. The petitioner-accused has been continuing in custody for the last more than 11 years as per para 2 of the better reply filed on behalf of respondent-State. In this reply, it has not been mentioned that earlier he has not availed any parole. The ground on which parole has been declined to the petitioner is not in accordance with Section 6 of the Act. No material has been placed on record, on the basis of which, it could be shown that there is chance of petitioner-accused absconding, if he is released on parole. Hence, in view of these facts, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 9.4.2010, Annexure P1 passed by the competent authority refusing release of the petitioner on parole for getting repaired his house is set-aside. Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the present petitioner for his release on parole in the light of the observations of this Court made above and as per the Act and the Rules and the Instructions on the point, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. December 01, 2010 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No