Crl.W.P.No.2068 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.W.P.No.2068 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 10, 2011 Ajit .....PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- Present: Mr. Surender Deswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Chahal, Addl.A.G., Haryana. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who has been convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar vide judgment dated 22.9.2006 in case FIR No.487 dated 21.11.2003 under Sections 302/364/201/34 IPC registered at P.S. Jhajjar, and is undergoing life imprisonment in District Jail, Karnal, has filed the instant petition for quashing the impugned order dated 22.06.2010 (Annexure P1) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole for four weeks to repair his house has been rejected. It has been further prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to release the petitioner on parole to enable him to repair his house. Pursuant to notice, short reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 as well as reply on behalf of Commissioner, Rohtak Crl.W.P.No.2068 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Division, Rohtak, which are taken on record. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in custody for more than five years and his behaviour in the jail is throughout good. It is further the case of the petitioner that his parole case been rejected by respondent No.2 on two grounds, firstly that the petitioner has constructed pucca house five/six years back, which is in good condition and there is no necessity for its repair; and secondly Tehsildar, Jhajjar has reported that the behaviour of the petitioner is not good in the village. It has been alleged that two times earlier also the parole case of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has the apprehension that the Clerk in the D.M. office at Jhajjar, in whose brother-in-law's murder case, the petitioner has been convicted, every time sends false report and at his behest the parole case of the petitioner has been rejected. In the reply, it has been admitted by the respondents that till date the petitioner has not availed any type of parole after conviction. It has been further averred that the facts of the parole application for house repair of the petitioner were got verified from the Superintendent of Police, Jhajjar and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jhajjar, who found that the house of the petitioner was in good condition and there was no necessity for its repair. It has been further averred that on verification, the conduct of the petitioner was not found good and it was apprehended that in case the petitioner is temporarily released on parole, there is apprehension of his committing further offence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, we are of the opinion that the petition Crl.W.P.No.2068 of 2010 (O&M) -3- deserves to be allowed. It has been specifically averred by the petitioner that his behaviour in the jail is throughout good and there is no complaint regarding his behaviour in the jail. In para 3 of the reply, it has been admitted by the respondents that the petitioner has undergone 5 years, 11 months and 14 days sentence including under trial period till 30.11.2010 without any misbehaviour. The District Magistrate has not recommended the parole case of the petitioner on the basis of the reports of the Superintendent of Police, Jhajjar and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jhajjar. In his report, the Superintendent of Police had intimated that the house of the petitioner is a pucca house, which was constructed by the petitioner five/six years back. Even if the house of the petitioner requires repair, the same can be done by the two sons of the petitioner, who are married and residing in the village. The Sub Divisional Magistrate has also reported that the conduct of the petitioner is not good in his village. Hence agreeing with the reports of the Superintendent of Police, Jhajjar and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jhajjar, District Magistrate, Jhajjar has not recommended the release of the petitioner on parole for house repair. In our opinion, this is not a valid ground for rejecting the parole case of the petitioner. There is no material before this Court on the basis of which it can be inferred that the conduct of the petitioner in the jail is not good and he can commit the crime again if released on parole. Even no document has been annexed. It appears that the Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak has arbitrarily rejected the parole case of the petitioner on the basis of the report of District Magistrate which might have been made at the behest of the Clerk, working in the D.M. office at Jhajjar, in whose brother-in-law's murder case the petitioner has been convicted. In our view, Section 3 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners Crl.W.P.No.2068 of 2010 (O&M) -4- (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 has been enacted as a reformative process. It provides an opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into a useful citizen. Until and unless sufficient material is available with the authorities giving solid reasons for declining the temporary release of a convict on parole, such benefit should not be declined merely on flimsy grounds. In the five years of imprisonment, the petitioner has not been granted the benefit of parole even once. Hence, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.06.2010 (Annexure P1) is quashed and the respondents are directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for temporary release on parole in light of the observations made in this order and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks' from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE January 10, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE