Criminal Writ Petition No.1241 of 2010(O&M)) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No.1241 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision:- September 10,2010 Mohsin ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mr. R.K.Bagga, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3(1)(c) of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short the 'Act'), is for issuance of direction to the respondents to accept the surety bonds of the petitioner as agricultural parole has already been sanctioned by the respondents to him. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Petitioner is presently confined in District Jail, Yamuna Nagar, and undergoing life imprisonment in FIR No.43, dated 31.12.2000, under Sections 302, 364, 201, 216, 120-B & 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, Police Station Gharounda, District Karnal. He applied for agricultural parole to respondent no.2 in January 2008. Case of petitioner was forwarded to District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar, U.P. on 28.3.2008. However, when the case was not decided by the competent authority, petitioner filed a petition in this Court vide Crl.M.No.M-743 of 2009 and respondent no.3 was directed to decide Criminal Writ Petition No.1241 of 2010(O&M)) -2- the same within three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Respondent no.3 under the Act sanctioned agricultural parole to petitioner and however, surety bonds of petitioner were not accepted. Petitioner again approached this Court for giving direction to respondent no.3 to accept surety bonds and this Court in Crl.M.No.M-25288 of 2009, directed respondent no.3 to accept surety bonds of the petitioner within a week from the receipt of certified copy of the order. However, petitioner could not submit the surety bonds within the said period due to some family problems and the period for submitting surety bonds already expired. In reply, it has been stated that the facts regarding grant of agricultural parole to the petitioner were got verified from the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar. However, as per report of District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar though petitioner owns 4-1/2 bigha of agricultural land, however his brothers are there for doing the agricultural work and that there is possibility of petitioner absconding from parole, if released and hence petitioner could not be released. Section 3 of the Act provides that a convict 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 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 (b) the marriage of the prisoner's son or daughter is to be celebrated; or (c) the temporary release of the prisoner is Criminal Writ Petition No.1241 of 2010(O&M)) -3- necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operation on his land and no friend of the prisoner or a member of the prisoner's family is prepared to help him in this behalf in his absence; (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 ground specified in clause (a) of sub section (1), two 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 ground specified in clause (c ) of sub- Section (1), six weeks. (2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (2), where a prisoner undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment, is to be released on the ground specified in Clause (d) of sub-section (1); he may be released for a period of six months or less in parts, during the five years. (3) The period of release under this Section shall not count towards the total period of the release of a prisoner. (4) The State Government may by notification authorise any officer to exercise its power Criminal Writ Petition No.1241 of 2010(O&M)) -4- under this section in respect of all or any of the grounds specified therein.” However, release on parole can be refused by competent authority by exercising power 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 any officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State Government or the maintenance of public order.” Hence, a careful perusal of the aforementioned provision shows that parole can be refused if release of a convict is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order. Hence, this Court is to see as to whether the impugned order passed by the competent authority is covered by any of the such grounds. The present case is not such that the release of petitioner is likely to endanger the security of the State. This Court is to see as to whether release of the petitioner on parole is likely to endanger maintenance of public order. In the present case petitioner was entitled to be released on agricultural parole, as per Act and the Rules and hence his case was forwarded to the competent authority by Superintendent of Jail. Conditional order for release on parole of petitioner was also passed by the competent authority. However, as he could not furnish the surety bonds within the stipulated period, he could not be released on parole, at that time. However, now his release on parole is being refused on the report of District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar on the ground that his brothers are there to do the agricultural work and that he may abscond from parole. However, in the report it has been stated that Criminal Writ Petition No.1241 of 2010(O&M)) -5- he owns 4-1/2 bigha of agricultural land. Additional hands are always required to do the agricultural work. Hence, even if brothers of petitioner are there to do agricultural work, agricultural parole cannot be refused to petitioner for which he is otherwise entitled. He has not availed any parole so far despite the fact that he has been continuing in custody for the last about ten years. No material has been placed on record on the basis of which District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar came to the conclusion that he may abscond, if released on parole. Respondents are again directed to consider the case of petitioner for his release on agricultural parole, as per Act and the Rules and in the light of observations made by this Court within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Disposed of accordingly. September 10, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) meenu JUDGE