Crl.W.P.No.788 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.W.P.No.788 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 09, 2011 Devi Singh .....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, for the respondents. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who is undergoing life imprisonment and presently confined in District Jail, Kaithal, has filed this petition for issuing direction to the respondents to release him on parole for six weeks for agricultural purpose. It is the case of the petitioner that in this regard he had made an application to the Superintendent, District Jail, Kaithal. The said application was forwarded by the Superintendent, Jails to the District Magistrate, Kaithal for sending enquiry report. In his report, the District Magistrate, Kaithal has stated that since there is stress between both the parties in the Crl.W.P.No.788 of 2011 -2- village, and in case the convict is released on parole, there are chances of happening of any untoward incident. As such, the District Magistrate did not recommend the case of the petitioner for grant of parole to him. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this petition. It is the case of the petitioner that against his conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred an appeal (Crl.A.No.107-DB of 2010) which stands admitted before this Court. It is further the case of the petitioner that there are four male members in the family, i.e. Jai Singh and his three sons, including the petitioner. It has been averred that all the four male members are involved in the same murder case and since their arrest they are inside the jail. It has been further stated none of them had earlier availed any parole and this is the first parole application which has been arbitrarily rejected by the authorities. It has been further stated that there are only ladies left behind the family of the petitioner and there is no male member who can look after the agriculture work. It has been specifically pleaded that there is 16 acres land in the name of the father of the petitioner. It has been stated that after his conviction, the petitioner has completed one year and four months of sentence and his conduct inside the jail is good throughout. The petitioner is not a hard core criminal or habitual offender. Keeping in view all these facts, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole for agricultural purpose may be granted. Pursuant to notice, a written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1& 4, which is taken on record. In the reply, it has been averred that the case of the petitioner for grant of agricultural parole was sent to the District Magistrate and the Commissioner, Ambala Division for Crl.W.P.No.788 of 2011 -3- verification of the facts and recommendation. After verifying the facts from the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, the District Magistrate sent his report to the Commissioner, Ambala Division. The Commissioner, after considering the report of the District Magistrate, rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that there is stress between both the parties in the village of the petitioner, and in case he is released on parole, there are chances of happening of any untoward incident. It has been further averred that though the conduct of the petitioner remained satisfactory inside the jail, but he cannot claim the parole as a matter of right. It is only concession which is given to the convicts for good conduct and on fulfilling certain conditions provided in the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the above facts, in our opinion, the respondent-authority has arbitrarily rejected the prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole. It is not the case of the respondents that in case the petitioner is released on parole, it is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. Merely, it has been stated that due to the stress between both the parties in the village of the petitioner, there are chances of happening of any untoward incident. In our opinion, on this flimsy ground, without any cogent material, the prayer of the petitioner could not have been rejected by the authorities. Further, after conviction, four male members of the petitioner's family have completed one year and four months inside the jail. Their conduct remained good throughout in the jail. None of them has availed any parole earlier. Crl.W.P.No.788 of 2011 -4- The release of a convict on parole is a wing of reformative process. Section 3 of the Act has been enacted as a reformative measure with an object to enable the prisoner to have family association or to perform certain family obligations and rituals. Until and unless sufficient material is available with the authorities giving solid reasons for declining the temporary release of a convict on parole, this benefit should not be declined. In the instant case, no such strong material or basis has been relied upon by the respondents while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on agriculture parole. Hence, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.2.2011 (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 May 09, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE