Crl.W.P.No.839 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.W.P.No.839 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 5, 2010 Vinod .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.H.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Dhruv Dayal, DAG, Haryana. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 26.3.2010, Annexure P3, passed by respondent no.1, vide which request of the petitioner for grant of parole for agricultural operations for six weeks under Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, (for short the `Act') was declined. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for offence punishable under Sections 302, 364, 201 IPC in FIR No.304, dated 5.7.2000, registered at Police Station City Panipat. Appeal against the said order filed by the petitioner has already been dismissed on 2.3.2007, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. An application was moved by the petitioner on 31.12.2009 to respondent no.2 for grant of parole for agricultural purposes. The request of the petitioner was forwarded by respondent no.2 to respondent nos.1 and 3 vide letter No.3462, dated 21.12.2009, however, the same was declined by the competent authority, i.e., Divisional Commissioner, Ambala, vide impugned order, Annexure P-3, dated 26.3.2010. Crl.W.P.No.839 of 2010 (O&M) -2- It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the grounds, on which request of petitioner for release on parole has been declined are not in accordance with the Act and the Rules, and hence, it is contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It has been further contended that even as per report of District Magistrate, Bagpat, petitioner owns agricultural land, which is being cultivated by his brothers. Hence, it is contended that parole cannot be declined on the ground that brothers of petitioner are there to cultivate the same as additional hands are always required for conducting agricultural operations. It is further contended that the other alleged ground taken is that after release on parole, petitioner may be involved in bad activities, which is general in nature, and the same is also not in accordance with the Act and the Rules. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned State counsel that the request of the petitioner for release on parole has been declined by the competent authority on the reports of District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Bagpat. Section 3(1)(c) of the Act provides that a convict be released on parole for agricultural operations and the same 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) ......... (b) ......... (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 petitioner.” Section 6 of the Act prescribes certain situations and cases in which the prisoners are not entitled to be released. The said Section reads as under:- Crl.W.P.No.839 of 2010 (O&M) -3- “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 authorised 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.” Hence, as per Section 6 of the Act, concession of release of a prisoner under the Act has to be refused in case the concerned authorities were of the view that the release of such prisoner was likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. However, in the present case none of the said grounds exists against the present petitioner. There is no report that release of petitioner on parole endangers the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. The alleged report of Superintendent of jail that petitioner may be involved in criminal activities, if released on parole, is also not based upon any material placed before him. Moreover, merely, on the ground that brothers of the petitioner are there to cultivate the land, agricultural parole cannot be denied to the petitioner as additional hands are always required to do agricultural work. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon Tarlochan Singh v. State of Haryana and others 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 376, wherein on similar facts parole for agricultural operations was granted by a coordinate Bench of this Court while setting aside the order passed by the competent authority. On the same point reliance has been placed upon Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana 2000(3) RCR (Criminal) 687, wherein as well plea was taken that petitioner was unmarried and having two brothers and, however, agricultural parole was allowed by observing that additional hand would be of some assistance in carrying out the work of cultivation of land. In Suresh v. State of Haryana 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 367, agricultural parole was allowed while setting aside the order passed by the competent authority on the same plea that services of additional hands are always required in conducting the agricultural operations. Hence, in view of these facts, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by competent authority refusing grant of Crl.W.P.No.839 of 2010 (O&M) -4- parole to petitioner is set aside. Respondent-authorities are directed to issue an order for temporary release of the petitioner for conducting agricultural operations for a period to be fixed by competent authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order as per Act and the Rules and on usual undertaking to be furnished by the petitioner. Disposed of accordingly. 5.8.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No.