IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. W.P. No. 1471 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 17.09.2010 Ramesh .... PETITIONER Versus The State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. A.S. Trikha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Chahal, Addl. A.G., Haryana. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, who has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 19.12.2008 and is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment in District Jail, Gurgaon, has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 14.7.2010 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, whereby his prayer for grant of parole under the provision of Section 3 (1) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, on the ground of repairing of his ancestral house has been declined. Pursuant to the notice issued, written statement has been filed Crl. W.P. No. 1471 of 2010 -2- by the respondents, stating therein that on the application of the petitioner, the facts regarding the condition of his house were got verified from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, who has reported that house of the petitioner in village Nandana, Police Station Meham, District Rothak, is in good condition, in which his mother is living. It has also been stated that the petitioner, on the pretext of repair of his house, wants to come on parole. It has been further stated that the petitioner is a vagabond type of person and if released on parole, he can again commit any heinous crime. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that house of the petitioner is in dilapidated condition and the report given by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, is not correct. In this regard, he has shown two photographs in the court, which appear to be of an abundant house. On the back of these photographs, it has been written by the Sarpanch of the village that house of Ramesh Kumar requires repair, but he has not certified that the house shown in the photographs belongs to petitioner Ramesh. We are not satisfied with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that house of the petitioner is in dilapidated condition and we have no reason to disbelieve the report made by Senior Superintendent of Police, Rohtak. In view of this fact, in our opinion, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, passed by the authority, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to release him on Crl. W.P. No. 1471 of 2010 -3- parole for repairing his house. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE September 17, 2010 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ndj JUDGE