Criminal Writ Petition No.976 of 2010(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No.976 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision:- September 16, 2010 Surender @ Sonu ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for releasing the petitioner on parole for six weeks to enable him to repair his house. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment in FIR No.382, dated 25.11.1996, under Sections 302, 120-B IPC, Police Station Sadar, Sonipat. He has also been sentenced for three years rigorous imprisonment in FIR No.354, dated 29.8.1999, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Civil Line, Rohtak, and life imprisonment in FIR No.52/1998, under Sections 120-B, 364A, 365, 392, 397 IPC, Police Station Model Town Delhi. He is also facing trial in the following pending cases: “1. FIR No.618/08, U/S 387/506/511 IPC, PS City Karnal. 2. FIR No.115/08, U/S 384/506/323 IPC, PS Bhondsi. 3. FIR No.196/09, U/S 392/402 IPC PS City Gohana. 4. FIR No.166/97, U/S 147/148/323 IPC, PS City Gurgaon. 5. FIR No.142/03, U/S 384, 323, 506 IPC, PS Civgil Lines Karnal.” Wife of petitioner moved an application dated 10.9.2009 for 1 Criminal Writ Petition No.976 of 2010(O&M) grant of parole to the petitioner for construction of a house. Earlier as well petitioner had filed Criminal Misc.No.M-30215 of 2009 and the same was disposed of with direction to the respondents to decide the application filed by wife of petitioner, as per law and, however, the same was rejected by the authorities vide order dated 28.12.2009, Annexure P1. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is nobody in the house of petitioner who can construct the house, except his wife and the minor children and hence it is contended that respondents be directed to release him on parole. On the other hand it has been contended by leaned State counsel that petitioner has been convicted in two other cases and is also facing trial in other five cases and hence he is a hard core gangster. It is also contended that he is not residing at the address given by him and hence his release on parole/furlough has not been recommended by District Magistrate Sonepat, as well as by Commissioner, Gurgaon. Section 3 of the Act provides that a convict be released on parole, which reads as under:- “3. Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds:- (1) The State Government may in consultation with the District Magistrate and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified in sub-section (2) any prisoner if the State Government is satisfied that:- (a) a member of the prisoner's family had died or is seriously ill; or (b) the marriage of the prisoner's son or daughter is to be celebrated; or (c) the temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operation on his land and no friend of the prisoner or a member of the prisoner's family is prepared to help him in this behalf in his absence; 2 Criminal Writ Petition No.976 of 2010(O&M) (d) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause. (2) The period for which a prisoner may be released shall be determined by the State Government so as not to exceed- (a) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub section (1), two weeks; (b) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (b) or clause (d) of sub- section (1), four weeks; and (c ) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (c ) of sub-Section (1), six weeks. (2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), where a prisoner undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment, is to be released on the ground specified in Clause (d) of sub-section (1); he may be released for a period of six months or less in parts, during the five years. (3) The period of release under this Section shall not count towards the total period of the release of a prisoner. (4) The State Government may by notification authorise any officer to exercise its power under this section in respect of all or any of the grounds specified therein.” However, release on parole can be refused by competent authority by exercising power under Section 6 of the Act, which reads as under:- 6. Prisoners not entitled to be released in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4, no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act if, on the report of the District Magistrate, the 3 Criminal Writ Petition No.976 of 2010(O&M) State Government or any officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State Government or the maintenance of public order.” Hence, a careful perusal of the aforementioned provision shows that parole can be refused if release of a convict is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order. Hence, this Court is to see as to whether the impugned order passed by the competent authority is covered by any of the such grounds. It has been mentioned by concerned District Magistrate that applicant-petitioner is a hard core gangster as he has been convicted in three cases and facing trial in five cases and hence he can commit any crime, if released on parole and hence public peace would be disturbed. In view of these facts, it cannot be said that there were no valid grounds before the concerned authorities to have denied release of petitioner on parole under Section 6 of the Act, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. September 16, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) meenu JUDGE 4