Criminal Misc. No.M-3391 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-3391 of 2008 Date of decision : 27.11.2008 Lokesh .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.Satnam Singh, Advocate for Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, S. D. ANAND, J. The parole plea of the petitioner-prisoner was declined by the competent authority on the basis of a report made by District Magistrate, Bagpat to the effect that he is a hardcore criminal, that he can commit another crime during the parole and that he may abscond if he is released on parole. Though the grant of parole is not a right vested in a prisoner, it also cannot be said that a parole plea can be declined on the basis of a vague apprehension indicated by the District Magistrate. The principle of transparency validates the view that the authority competent to consider the request of a prisoner under incarceration must announce to the applicant the reasons for disallowance thereof. The impugned order deserves invalidation as it fails the test of being self-contained and transparent. Criminal Misc. No.M-3391 of 2008 -2- **** It is not the plea that the petitioner-prisoner has been convicted in any other offence as well of that he is facing any other criminal trial too and it is also not the ground that he jumped parole or absconded from law. At the same time, there are ways and means to ensure that petitioner-prisoner does evade the law. The authority competent in the relevant behalf could very well insist upon the furnishing of local sureties of adequate solvency. It could also be insisted upon that sureties would furnish documentary proof of the property which they hold. It could further be directed that petitioner-prisoner would report to the local police (of the place he is to be around during the period of parole) once in a week. The petition shall stand disposed of accordingly. The impugned order is set aside. The competent authority is directed to pass an order afresh within one month from today. The petition shall be treated as application for the grant of furlough. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the competent authority. Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary. November 27, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE