CRWP No.2143 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No.2143 of 2010 Date of decision: 9.12.2010 Sarabjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.HS Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed by petitioner Sarabjit Singh under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing the impugned order dated 8.11.2010 Annexure P-3 passed by respondent No.2, whereby his parole case has been rejected and further praying for grant him emergency parole for four weeks to enable him to look after his wife, who is pregnant and expected date of delivery is 28.11.2010 under Section 3(1)(a) read with Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988. 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 RI for 8 years in case FIR No.94 dated 11.7.2008 registered under Sections 304-B/34 IPC at Police Station Mulana, District CRWP No.2143 of 2010 2 Ambala by the learned trial Court. He is in custody since 13.8.2010. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that expected date of delivery of his wife was 28.11.2010, however, she has not yet delivered. Even Gram Panchayat of the village has recommended for his release on parole, as nobody else is there to look after her as the parents of the petitioner are very old and unable to look after her. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent-State, the fact that the expected date of delivery of wife of the petitioner was 28.11.2010, has not been disputed, rather it has been stated that she was expecting delivery within 6 days from the date of report i.e. 2.12.2010. Certificate issued by Gram Panchayat also attached with the reply to the effect that parents of the petitioner are very old age and not in a position to look after his wife, who is at advance stage of pregnancy. It has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent- State the the parole case of the petitioner has been declined as he has not completed one year of imprisonment after conviction, which is provided under Rule 4(1) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules. Learned counsel for petitioner has also placed reliance upon the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRWP No.1201 of 2010 bearing caption Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, in which, under similar circumstances, when wife of the petitioner-accused was seriously ill, parole was allowed, even though, petitioner had not completed the requisite sentence of one year after conviction. CRWP No.2143 of 2010 3 The present case is for emergency parole as wife of the petitioner is to deliver a child and there is nobody in the house capable to look after her. Hence, in view of these facts, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for temporary release under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act and to grant him parole subject to any condition that may deem to be imposed by the competent authority, within one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. However, it will be duty of the counsel for the respondent-State to inform about this order to the competent authority. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Reader of this Bench. December 9, 2010 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE