Crl.W.P.No.1921 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.W.P.No.1921 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 29, 2010 Sarita .....PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH --- Present: Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Dhruv Dayal, D.A.G., Haryana. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who has been convicted for life imprisonment by Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar vide judgment dated 24.2.2009 for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and is undergoing sentence in District Jail, Yamunanagar, has filed the instant petition for directing the respondents to release her on parole to enable her to repair her house which is in bad condition. It is the case of the petitioner that for getting her house repaired, the petitioner had moved an application before the Superintendent, District Jail, Yamunanagar for grant of parole. The said application was rejected by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala vide order dated 28.4.2010. It is further the case of the petitioner that while undergoing Crl.W.P.No.1921 of 2010 -2- sentence, she has maintained good conduct in jail and has not given a chance of any complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that due to heavy rains this year, some portion of the house of the petitioner got damaged and the same requires immediate repairs. He further contends that the house of the petitioner is in very bad condition and it will be difficult and dangerous for a person to live in it. It has been further alleged that there is no other member in the family of the petitioner to get repair the house. Learned counsel contends that the respondents have arbitrarily rejected the parole case of the petitioner without any valid ground. Therefore, a direction be issued to the respondents to release the petitioner on parole to enable her to get her house repaired. Pursuant to notice, a reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 which is taken on record. In the reply, it has been averred that the parole case of the petitioner, who served in the Police department, was got verified by the Superintendent of Police, Yamunanagar, who in his report has stated that the house of the petitioner is pucca built, which is in good condition, and there is no need for its immediate repairs. It has been further reported that the parents and brother of the petitioner are living at her house. Therefore, the release of the petitioner on parole has not been recommended by the local police. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case, we do not find any merit in the petition. In our opinion, District Magistrate, Yamunanagar has rightly not recommended the parole case of the petitioner on the ground that the house of the petitioner is a pucca house, which is in good condition, and the same does not require Crl.W.P.No.1921 of 2010 -3- immediate repairs. Moreover, the parents and brother of the petitioner are also living at the house of the petitioner, who can easily take care of the house of the petitioner. Thus, we do not find any ground for issuing the direction as prayed for by the petitioner. Hence, the criminal writ petition is dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE November 29, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) vkg JUDGE