CRWP No.1747 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No.1747 of 2010 Date of decision: 19.11.2010 Chander Bhan ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Rahul Deswal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Ranbir Singh Arya, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed by petitioner Chander Bhan under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking quashing of impugned order dated 30.8.2010, Annexure P-1, passed by respondent No.2 and to release the petitioner on parole for six weeks for agricultural operation. Reply filed on behalf of respondent-State is taken on record. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Admitted facts are that the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment in case FIR No.191 dated 1.7.2002 registered under Sections 302, 148, 149, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Pehowa. He has undergone 7 CRWP No.1747 of 2010 2 years, 4 months and 23 days of his sentence including under trial period till 10.11.2010. He has already availed five times six weeks parole. He has also availed four times four weeks emergency parole and three times furlough after conviction. The parole case of the petitioner for agricultural work was initiated by Superintendent, District Jail Kaithal vide his letter Nos.1752-53 dated 29.5.2010, as he was entitled for parole and was sent to the District Magistrate, Kaithal. The District Magistrate, Kaithal verified the facts given by the petitioner through Tehsildar Kaithal and recommended his case for releasing him on parole for agricultural operation to the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala. However, parole has been declined to the petitioner by the competent authority i.e. Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and the reason given for denial of parole to the petitioner is that he had recently availed four weeks house repair parole from 13.3.2010 to 11.4.2010. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he had availed last agricultural parole from 19.8.2009 to 1.10.2009 and that already more than one year has expired. Further contended that about seven months have expired since the petitioner returned from his earlier parole for house repair purpose. Section 3 of the Act provides that a convict can be released on parole, which 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, CRWP No.1747 of 2010 3 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) a member of the prisoner’s family had died or is seriously ill or the prisoner himself is seriously ill; or (b) the marriage of prisoner himself, his son, daughter, grandson, grand-daughter, brother, sister, sister’s son or daughter is to be celebrated; or (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. (d) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause. (2) The period for which a prisoner may be released shall be determined by the State Government so as not to exceed- (a) where the prisoner is to be released on the grounds specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1), three weeks; (b) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (b) or clause (d) of sub-section (1), four weeks; and (c) where the prisoner is to be released on the grounds specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1), six weeks; Provided that the temporary release under clause (c) can CRWP No.1747 of 2010 4 be availed more than once during the year, which shall not, however, cumulatively exceed six weeks. (3) The period of release under this section shall not count towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner. (4) The State Government may, by notification, authorize any officer to exercise its powers under this section in respect of all or any other ground specified thereunder.” Further Section 6 of the Act provides for the grounds on which the parole can be refused, which reads as under:- “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 authorized 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.” Bare perusal of Section 6 of the Act shows that release of petitioner on parole can be refused only on the ground that the same is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of the public order. However, in the present case, request of the petitioner for his release on parole for agricultural operation has not been rejected on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 6 of the Act. Rather his request for releasing him on parole was rejected on the plea that he had availed house repair CRWP No.1747 of 2010 5 parole in the recent past from 13.3.2010 to 11.4.2010. However, about six months have expired since he returned from earlier house repair parole. Conduct of the petitioner in the jail as per the reply remained good. He has availed parole several times and never jumped. Moreover, there is no bar under the Act and the Rules for availing agricultural parole and house repair parole within the same year as agricultural parole is covered under Section 3 (1)(c) of the Act whereas house repair parole is granted under Section 3(1) (d) of the Act. Hence, in view of these facts, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.8.2010, Annexure P1 passed by the competent authority refusing release of the petitioner on parole for agricultural operation is set-aside. Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the present petitioner for his release on parole in the light of the observations of this Court made above, as per the Act and the Rules and the Instructions on the point, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Disposed of accordingly. November 19, 2010 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No.