IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.W.P. No.1134 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: JUNE 29, 2010 Parveen .....PETITIONER Versus The State of Haryana and another ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA --- Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Addl.A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who is a life convict and at present confined in District Jail, Bhondsi, Gurgaon, has filed the instant petition for issuing direction to the respondents for his temporary release on Emergency Parole for four weeks under Section 3(1)(a) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') on the ground to get his father operated upon. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, it has been stated that the petitioner without first approaching the authority under the aforesaid Act, has directly filed the present petition. He did not move any application for Emergency Parole on the aforesaid ground before the authority. It is further mentioned that the petitioner moved an application for agriculture parole and that application is under consideration with the office of Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon. It has also been Crl.W.P. No.585 of 2010 -2- stated that on verification of the fact of the illness of the father of the petitioner, it was found that he was admitted in Gupta Ultrasound & Heart Care Centre, Paschim Vihar, Delhi for two days due to sugar disease, and thereafter, he was discharged from the hospital. It has also been mentioned that there are three other persons in the family, namely, Smt.Kasturi Devi, mother of the petitioner and Sunil Kumar & Sonu, brothers of the petitioner, who can look after their ailing father, namely, Kishan Lal. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite the case having been called twice, we have heard the counsel for the respondents and gone through the contents of the petition as well as the reply. In view of the facts stated in the reply, we do not find any ground to issue any direction for grant of parole to the petitioner on the ground of treatment of his father. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE June 29, 2010 ( H.S. BHALLA ) vkg JUDGE