IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-18653 of 2008 Date of decision : 4.9.2008 Rampal ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. P.K.Hooda, Advocate Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. S. D. ANAND, J. A conjunctive perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-1) and the counter filed by respondent no.3 on behalf of all the respondents would indicate that agriculture parole plea of the petitioner was declined on the premise that there is no agricultural holding in his name which he could cultivate and the agricultural holding measuring 1 kanal 9 Marlas is entered in the revenue record in the name of his mother only. It is not the averment that the petitioner has any other grown up able bodied brother which could cultivate that land which stands in the name of petitioner's mother. Even though the extent of agricultural holding in the name of mother of the petitioner may not be much, the law does not envision the declining of parole plea on that account only. In the light of the fore-going discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order (Annexure P-1) shall stand set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for four weeks subject to, of course, furnishing of adequate security to the satisfaction of the authority competent in the relevant behalf. The State counsel shall communicate this order to the competent authority. September 04, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE