IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-34046 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 23, 2008 Mohd. Dilshad … Petitioner Versus State of U.T., Chandigarh and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Sunil K. Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. (Oral) Crl. Misc. No. 60053 of 2008 Allowed, as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-34046 of 2008 The parole plea of the petitioner – prisoner was declined by the Competent Authority vide order dated 23.10.2008 (Annexure P/1) by passing the following order:- “The District Magistrate, Haridwar has not recommended for the release of convict Dilshad s/o Wahid Hussain on parole on plea that the convict is unmarried and if he is released on parole he may abscond or he may underground his presence. The Crl. Misc. No. M-34046 of 2008 parole case of the convict is thus rejected. He may be informed accordingly.” It is apparent from the impugned order itself that it is not the averment that the petitioner had ever absconded at an earlier point of time. The impugned order also does not indicate the basis of apprehension entertained by the Competent Authority that the petitioner will go underground. Yet another ground noticed by the Competent Authority is that the petitioner is likely to abscond because he is unmarried. The abovementioned averments/apprehensions are absolutely hypothetical. A parole plea has to be considered and disposed of in the light of the instructions / rules on the subject which are not indicated to contain a provision for disallowance of the request on such a hypothetical ground. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand allowed in limine. The Competent Authority is directed to dispose of the parole plea of the petitioner – prisoner afresh in the light of the facts noticed above. The exercise shall be concluded within fifteen days from today. December 23, 2008 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 2