Criminal Misc. No.M-31828 of 2008 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-31828 of 2008 Date of decision : 3.12.2008 Major Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Ms. B.P.K.Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner S. D. ANAND, J. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner initially filed Criminal 18603-M of 2008 to challenge the rejection of his parole plea by the competent authority on 17.4.2008. In that case, the following order was passed by this Court:- “The parole plea of the petitioner – prisoner was rejected by the Competent Authority (vide impugned order, Annexure P-3) in view of the fact that he escaped from the police custody on 20.11.2002 and could be arested only on 19.10.2005. He is alleged to have escaped from the police custody when he was brought out of the jail for being produced in a court in connection with some other case. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that though she is not in apposition to challenge the correctness of the above cause, her only grievance is that the release of the petitioner Criminal Misc. No.M-31828 of 2008 -2- *** on parole could not have been denied to him for all times to come. The argument is that if a prisoner escapes from law, his release on parole thereafter can be denied for a period of one year from the date of escape. Learned State counsel informs that she is not in a position to concede or deny the correctness of the rule related averment made on behalf of the petitioner. She is handicapped in the context as none from the Department has turned up to assist her. The petition shall stand disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to dispose of the parole plea of the petitioner afresh within fifteen days from today after ascertaining the correctness or otherwise of the rule related averment made on behalf of the petitioner that his release on parole could have been denied only for a period of one year with effect from the date of his escape. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the Competent Authority.” However, even on reconsideration, the competent authority has denied the parole to the petitioner for a period of six months from the date of that order i.e. 4.11.2008. The petitioner has filed the present petition against that order. There is no dispute with the factual position that the petitioner did escape from police custody on 20.11.2002 and could be arrested only on 19.10.2005. At the same time, learned State counsel very fairly concedes that the release of the prisoner of the indicated category could be deferred only for a period of one year after the commission of the crime. In that view of things, it is apparent that the impugned order Criminal Misc. No.M-31828 of 2008 -3- *** deserves to be invalidated. It may be noticed, in the context, that the petitioner-prisoner escaped from the police custody on 20.11.2002 and was arrested on 19.10.2005. A period of more than three years has elapsed since then. The rule would not authorise the denial of parole to the petitioner beyond a period of one year with effect from the date of dereliction/apprehension thereafter. In the light of the fore-going discussion, the impugned order is set aside. In order to avoid further harassment to the petitioner, he is ordered to be released on parole for a period of one month subject to, of course, the furnishing of adequate security to the satisfaction of the authority competent in the relevant behalf. December 03, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE