IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Writ Petition No. 937 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 15, 2010. Pardeep ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mrs. Anju Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Bhavna, D.A.G., Punjab. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to respondents to release the petitioner on house repair parole for six weeks under Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short the ‘Act’). Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent-State. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. CRWP No.937 of 2010 Admitted facts are that, petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years in case FIR No.151 dated 27.03.2004, under Sections 376/377/526 IPC. He has already undergone 6 years 3 months and 2 days sentence including undertrial period as on 06.07.2010. He was released on interim bail from 11.11.2008 to 15.11.2008 in compliance of order of this Court. Petitioner applied for his release on parole for repair of house, which was initiated by respondent No.3 i.e. Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal accordingly. However, District Magistrate, Panipat did not recommend the release of petitioner on house repair parole and hence, the competent authority i.e. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak declined the same on the basis of report of District Magistrate, Panipat vide impugned order, Annexure P2. I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 3 of the Act provides that a convict can 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 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 prisoner himself, his son, daughter, grandson, grand-daughter, brother, sister, sister’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 2 CRWP No.937 of 2010 agricultural operation on his land or his father’s undivided land actually in possession of the petitioner. (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 the sentence of a prisoner. (4) The State Government may, by notification, authorize any officer to exercise its powers under this section in respect of all or any other ground specified thereunder.” Further Section 6 of the Act provides for the grounds on which the parole can be refused, 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 State Government or an officer authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.” Perusal of Section 6 of the Act shows that release of petitioner on parole can be refused on the ground that the same is likely to endanger the 3 CRWP No.937 of 2010 security of the State or the maintenance of the public order. In the present case, while declining parole to the petitioner, competent authority i.e. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak on the basis of report of District Magistrate, Panipat has stated that the house for repair of which parole is sought by the petitioner, is in good condition. Report of District Magistrate, Panipat reads as under:- “The facts have been got verified through Senior Superintendent of Police, Panipat who intimated vide his letter no.62761 dated 09.10.2009 (copy enclosed) that the petitioner is a permanent resident of the above said address. There is a concrete house inside Lal Dora of his village in the name of petitioner’s father. In front of that house, there is a Varamada for animals. That house is in good condition. The parents and three brothers of the convict are present in his family. The petitioner is unmarried and there is nil responsibility of family on his shoulder. Addition to this, the house of the victim party is in neighbour of the petitioner’s house. Due to that, there is complete apprehension of breach of peace. The facts on which the convict wants to come on parole have been found false.” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that this is for the petitioner to decide whether his house requires repair or not and that his release on parole can not be declined on the ground that his father and three brothers are there to look after the house. She has also placed reliance upon Balbir Singh v. Haryana State, 2000(4) RCR(Crl.) 353, Pawan Kumar v. Director General Prisons, 2000(4) RCR(Crl.) 239, Tej Ram v. State of Haryana, 2002(3) RCR(Crl.) 287 and Karan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000(3) RCR(Crl.) 418. 4 CRWP No.937 of 2010 However, none of the abovesaid judgments are applicable on the facts of the case. Petitioner is unmarried and is having no family. He has applied for parole for repair of house which is inhabited by his father and three brothers. Moreover, as per report the house is in good condition. It has also been stated by District Magistrate, Panipat that there is apprehension of breach of peace as the house of victim party is in the neighbourhood of the petitioner’s house. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that the refusal of house repair parole to petitioner vide impugned order dated 26.10.2009 Annexure P2, is not in accordance with Section 6 of the Act warranting interference by this Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 15, 2010. JUDGE 'om' Note: Whether referred to reporter? Yes / No 5