Crl.W.P.No.212 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.W.P.No.212 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 10, 2011 Imran .....PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- Present: Mr. H.S. Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Chahal, Addl. A.G., Haryana. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who has been convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar vide judgment dated 1.6.2009 in case FIR No.208 dated 25.11.2007 under Sections 302/323/324/506 IPC registered at P.S. Sadar Yamunanagar, and is undergoing life imprisonment in District Jail, Yamunanagar, has filed the instant petition for quashing the impugned order dated 10.11.2010 (Annexure P4) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ambala, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole for four weeks to repair his house has been rejected. It has been further prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for four weeks under Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 to enable him to repair his house. Pursuant to notice, a reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, which is taken on record. Crl.W.P.No.212 of 2011 (O&M) -2- We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the petition, it has been alleged that the parole release case of the petitioner, duly recommended by the Panchayat, was forwarded by the Superintendent, District Jail, Yamunanagar to the District Magistrate, Yamunanagar for conducting verification and recommendation. The District Magistrate, on the basis of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, found that due to rainy season the house of the petitioner is in dilapidated condition and the same needs repair. However, it has been further found by the District Magistrate that in the house of the petitioner, other members are also residing who can get the house repaired. Further, on secret information, it has come to the notice that in case the petitioner is released on parole, there is apprehension of his escaping from the parole. Therefore, the release of the petitioner on parole for house repair has not been recommended. It is the case of the petitioner that since his conduct in the jail is good throughout and he has been granted remissions by the Government from time to time, he is entitled to be released on parole as he fulfills the conditions laid down under Rule 4(1) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 2007. It has been alleged that till date the petitioner has not availed any parole or furlough. It is further the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 has rejected his parole release case without any material and justification. In the reply, it has been admitted by the respondents that the house of the petitioner is in dilapidated condition due to the rainy season and the same needs repair. However, the stand taken by the respondents that Crl.W.P.No.212 of 2011 (O&M) -3- in case the petitioner is released on parole, there is apprehension of his escaping from parole, is without any basis or material. In our opinion, the rejection of the parole release case of the petitioner by the respondents on the said ground, in the absence of any material to that effect, is totally without application of mind. Further, the stand taken by the petitioner that his conduct in the jail remained good throughout, has not been controverted by the respondents in the reply. In the Panchayat Report (Annexure P1), it has been stated that besides the wife of the petitioner, who is maintaining the house with difficulty, there are small children in the house of the petitioner who are unable to get the house repaired. In the said report, it has been specifically stated that if the petitioner is released on parole, there will not be apprehension of breach of peace. Thus, we are of the opinion that the rejection of the prayer of the petitioner is totally unjustified and unreasonable. The petitioner is entitled to be released on parole for house repair. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.11.2010 (Annexure P4) is quashed and the respondents are directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for temporary release on parole in light of the observations made in this order and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks' from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 10, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE