Crl. W. P. No. 1717 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. W. P. No. 1717 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 23, 2011 Ram Chander .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. V. S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar, DAG, Haryana. for the respondents. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Ram Chander has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking release on parole for four weeks to enable the petitioner to get his son admitted in Second Year of Bachelor of Engineering Course. Affidavit of petitioner's wife, filed today in Court, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. It has been affirmed in the affidavit that classmates of the petitioner's son have informed that the concerned Engineering College has made special arrangement and would be accepting Crl. W. P. No. 1717 of 2011 2 fee for the course along with late fee up to 25.09.2011. Reply on behalf of respondents, filed today in Court, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Copy given to the opposite counsel. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner may be granted parole to enable him to get his son admitted in Second Year course of Bachelor of Engineering. On the other hand, learned State counsel for respondents contended that the petitioner has been sentenced to imprisonment for three years and according to Rule 4(2) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 2007 (in short – the Rules), a person, who has been sentenced to imprisonment for less than four years, shall not be eligible for parole, and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for parole. Counsel for the petitioner has cited an unreported judgment of this Court passed on 29.08.2011 in Criminal Writ Petition No.1440 of 2011. In that case also, the petitioner's sentence was reduced to imprisonment for three years in appeal. He was granted parole for admission of his sons. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. According to Rule 4(2) of the Rules, the petitioner is not eligible to be released on parole. Ordinarily, this Court would not like to Crl. W. P. No. 1717 of 2011 3 pass an order in breach of statutory provisions. However, even if the case of the petitioner is considered sympathetically, no useful purpose is going to be served by passing an order of release of the petitioner on parole today. As per petitioner's own averment, fee of the petitioner's son is to be deposited along with late fee up to 25.09.2011 i.e. Sunday and it is already Friday today. The petitioner would not be even able to complete the formalities for release on parole, even if a favourable order is passed today because office of District Magistrate, where the formalities are to be completed and surety bonds are to be furnished, shall remain closed on Saturday and Sunday. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant writ petition is dismissed. September 23, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE