Crl. W. P. No. 1876 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. W. P. No. 1876 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 26, 2011 Joginder .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Joginder – a life convict has filed the instant criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, for grant of agricultural parole. His request for agricultural parole has been rejected by Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak – respondent no.2, vide order dated 23.05.2011 (Annexure P-2), necessitating the filing of instant criminal writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Crl. W. P. No. 1876 of 2011 2 Perusal of the Custody Certificate (Annexure P-1) reveals that in addition to sentence of life imprisonment in murder case, in which parole is sought, the petitioner has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.7,000/- in FIR under Sections 395, 397 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) and also convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in FIR under Sections 148, 149, 412 and 307 IPC and Section 25 (IB) (a) of the Arms Act . Besides it, he has been acquitted in a case under the Arms Act, but convicted in another case under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone in custody. It is thus apparent that besides murder case, the petitioner is convict in three other cases including cases for commission of very serious offences. In addition to the aforesaid, perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-2), passed by respondent no.2 rejecting petitioner's prayer for release on parole, reveals that while the petitioner-convict was released on parole in March 2010, then two cases were registered against him and he was admitted to jail after arrest by the police after one day of the expiry of parole. In view of aforesaid conduct of the petitioner, his prayer for release on agricultural parole has been rightly rejected by the competent authority. Crl. W. P. No. 1876 of 2011 3 It is also significant to notice that according to the impugned order Annexure P-2, the petitioner has only 360 sq. yds. agricultural land, which is being cultivated by his brothers. In view of very small piece of agricultural land also, the petitioner would not be entitled to agricultural parole, keeping in view the other circumstances noticed herein before. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality in the impugned order Annexure P-2 passed by respondent no.2 rejecting the petitioner's prayer for parole so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. September 26, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE