Crl.W.P.No.1246 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.W.P.No.1246 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:September 23, 2010 Satish .....Petitioner v. The State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.A.S.Trikha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of impugned order, Annexure P1, and for issuance of direction to the respondents to allow four weeks parole to the petitioner to repair his ancestral house under Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act'). Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents-State. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Petitioner is undergoing ten years rigorous imprisonment in FIR No.189, dated 29.8.1999, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Gohana, and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. He was convicted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, vide judgment dated 20.10.2000. Appeal against the said judgment was also dismissed by this Court. He remained undertrial in the said case from 16.10.2000 to 19.10.2000 and readmitted in the jail on 19.12.2008 on dismissal of the appeal by this Court and hence, as on today he has undergone less than two Crl.W.P.No.1246 of 2010 (O&M) -2- years of imprisonment. Case of petitioner for his release on house repair parole was initiated by Superintendent, District Jail, Sonepat, i.e., respondent no.2, vide letter Nos.590-91 dated 9.2.2010 and sent to District Magistrate, Sonepat, for his recommendation as per Rules under the Act and a copy of the same was also sent to Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, who is competent authority, for deciding the release of petitioner on parole. However, District Magistrate, Sonepat, did not recommend the parole case of the petitioner on the basis of report of Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, that the house of petitioner does not require any repairs and that moreover there are three brothers of the petitioner-convict, who are residing in the said house. It has also been mentioned that the convict intends to abscond from jail on the pretext of house repair parole and hence as the case of petitioner for release on parole has not been recommended by District Magistrate, Sonepat, competent authority, i.e., Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, passed the impugned order rejecting the release of petitioner on parole. The reason given by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, in impugned order, is that the house of convict is well built and is not liable to repair and that the convict will not return to jail after coming on parole and may become absconder. A convict can be released on parole by competent authority under Section 3 of the Act, which reads as under: “3. Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds.-(1) The State Government may, in consultation with the District Magistrate or any other officer appointed in this behalf, by notification in the Official Gazette 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 the prisoner himself is seriously ill; or (b) the marriage of the prisoner himself, his son, daughter, grandson, grand-daughter, brother, sister, sister's son or daughter is to be Crl.W.P.No.1246 of 2010 (O&M) -3- 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 or his father's undivided land actually in possession of the prisoner; or (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 grounds specified in clause (a) of sub section (1), three 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 grounds specified in clause (c ) of sub-Section (1), six weeks: Provided that the temporary release under Clause (c ) can be availed more than once during the year, which shall not, however, cumulatively exceed six weeks. (3) The period of release under this Section shall not count towards the total period of sentence of a prisoner. (4) The State Government may, by notification, authorise any officer to exercise its powers under this section in respect of all or any of the ground specified thereunder.” However, Government of Haryana framed Rules, i.e., Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 2007, by virtue of powers conferred by sub-section (1) read with sub-Section (2) of Section 10 Crl.W.P.No.1246 of 2010 (O&M) -4- and read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988. Relevant Rule 8 of the said Rules reads as under:- “8. Under Section 3(1)(d) “sufficient cause” may be considered from amongst the following reasons, namely:- (i)admission in school/college/professional institutions of the dependents of the convict; (ii)medically scheduled delivery of wife of the convict; (iii)house repairs/new construction of house owned by the convict. Parole for house repair shall be granted only once in three years; (iv)Marriage of prisoner's brother's son or daughter to be celebrated in case his brother is not alive” In this case petitioner-convict has undergone less than two years of sentence. Reasons given by him for his release on parole is that his house requires repair. However, the matter was got enquired into by the competent authority and in the report it has been stated that house is well built and did not require any repair. It has also been stated that moreover three of his brothers are also there to look after the house. The competent authority was also having apprehension that petition-accused may abscond, if released on parole. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the competent authority refusing release of petitioner on parole is, in any way, illegal or suffers from any material irregularity, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. 23.9.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No