Crl.W.P. No.1896 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.W.P. No.1896 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 29, 2010 Darshan Singh and another .....PETITIONERS Versus The State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH --- Present: Mr.Gourav Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Both the petitioners, who have been convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC and undergoing sentence of life imprisonment in District Jail, Kurukshetra, have filed the instant petition for quashing the impugned orders dated 30.8.2010 and 15.9.2010 (Annexures P4 and P3) both passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ambala, whereby the prayers of the petitioners for releasing them on furlough/parole have been declined. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioner No.1 had earlier only availed Agricultural Parole from 9.6.2010 to 8.7.2010 and has also undergone more than five years of his sentence in jail with good conduct. He further argued that petitioner No.1 had specifically made the prayer for being released on furlough. However, the Divisional Commissioner, Ambala has wrongly considered the furlough case of the said petitioner as parole case and rejected the same without any justification. Similarly, petitioner No.2 had earlier availed parole from 13.4.2010 to 12.5.2010 only and not recently as observed by the Divisional Commissioner. Learned counsel contended that the Divisional Crl.W.P. No.1896 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Commissioner, Ambala, without considering the provisions of Sections 4 and 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, has declined the prayer of both the petitioners for being released on furlough/parole only on the ground that they have availed the concession of parole some days before, which is neither justified nor a valid ground. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders. In the impugned order (Annexure P4), it has been observed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ambala that since petitioner No.2 has availed parole recently from 13.4.2010 to 12.5.2010 for four weeks, there is no question for releasing him on parole so early. Similarly, vide impugned order (Annexure P3), it has been observed by the Divisional Commissioner that petitioner No.1 had earlier availed parole for 10 weeks in this year. Last time, the said petitioner has availed parole from 9.6.2010 to 8.7.2010 for four weeks. Keeping in view the said facts, the parole case of petitioner No.1 has been rejected. In our opinion, in the absence of any emergent or special case, the second application for parole could not be considered before the expiry of one year. The purpose of grant of benefit of parole to an accused is to give respiration to him. Once the said benefit has been extended to both the petitioners and they have been released on parole only recently, they cannot be granted the said benefit at this stage. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned orders. Dismissed. However, in the next year, it will be open for both the petitioners to apply for furlough/parole. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE October 29, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) vkg JUDGE