Criminal Misc. No.M-32124 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-32124 of 2008 Date of decision : 5.12.2008 Jarnail Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Ms. B.P.K. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Misc. No. M-1721 of 2008 to obtain the invalidation of the order passed by the competent authority declining the agriculture parole plea raised by the petitioner- prisoner on the premise that he had over stayed a parole release in the year 2006. This Court passed the following order in that matter:- “The agriculture parole plea filed by the petitioner-prisoner was declined by the competent authority in view of a report furnished by District Magistrate, Gurdaspur, that the past conduct of the petitioner-prisoner did not entitle him to release on parole. The District Magistrate based his report upon the information furnished by Senior Superintendent of Police, Criminal Misc. No.M-32124 of 2008 -2- **** Gurdaspur. The impugned order indicates that the parole plea was being declined as the petitioner-prisoner had over stayed a parole release in the year 2006 and he had to be arrested in pursuance of a case which came to be registered against him on that account. Learned counsel for the petitioner-prisoner argues that though she is not in a position to contest the correctness of the above averment, the further release of the petitioner-prisoner on parole could have been denied to him only for a period of one year following the violation. Learned State counsel states that she is not in a position to deny the averment for want of instructions in the relevant behalf. In the light of the fore-going discussion, the impugned order is set aside. The competent authority is directed to decide the parole plea of the petitioner afresh within one month from today.” Even thereafter, the competent authority declined the agriculture parole plea of the petitioner by again placing reliance upon the fact that he had over shot the previous parole. The competent authority was completely oblivious of the fact that this Court had noticed, in the course of order dated 27.8.2008, the fact that the over stay of parole could have enabled the deferment of parole plea only for a period of one year following the violation. Infact, the competent authority was required to compulsively respect that finding by this Court. But it did not do so. Criminal Misc. No.M-32124 of 2008 -3- **** The petition shall stand disposed of accordingly with a direction to the competent authority to pass an order granting parole to the petitioner-prisoner for a period of one month. The exercise shall be concluded within three days from today. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the competent authority. Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary. December 05, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No