Crl. W. P. No. 1541 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. W. P. No. 1541 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 22, 2011 Satbir Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. S. S. Kharb, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar, DAG, Haryana. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Satbir Singh – a convict under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing instant criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3 (1) (d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (in short – the Act) for release on parole for four weeks alleging that the petitioner has received notice dated 15.05.2011 (Annexure P-1) from State Bank of India for paying overdue instalments of bank loan. Crl. W. P. No. 1541 of 2011 2 In reply on behalf of respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner was released on parole for four weeks from 14.03.2011 to 12.04.2011 for house repair and therefore, he is not entitled to be released on parole for arranging money for repayment of overdue instalment of bank loan. It is also alleged that no such ground has been provided in the Act or rules framed thereunder for grant of parole for this purpose. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has received notice Annexure P-1 for repayment of loan instalment to the bank and therefore, he should be released on parole for arranging necessary amount. Prayer has been opposed by learned State counsel on the basis of averments made in the reply. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The petitioner, in the writ petition, concealed the material fact that he had been released on parole from 14.03.2011 to 12.04.2011 for house repair. The petitioner very well knew about repayment schedule of his loan to the bank. Consequently, during the said period of parole, the petitioner should have arranged the requisite amount and paid the loan instalment to the bank. Immediately after coming back to the jail, the petitioner, on the basis of notice Annexure P-1, wants to be released again on parole, for which, no justification is made out. On the other hand, the Crl. W. P. No. 1541 of 2011 3 petitioner, in the writ petition, concealed the material fact that he had been released on parole from 14.03.2011 to 12.04.2011. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. September 22, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE