Crl.W.P.No.2048 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.W.P.No.2048 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 21, 2010 Baljeet .....PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH --- Present: Mr. R.K. Bagga, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Dhruv Dayal, D.A.G., Haryana. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who has been convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide judgment dated 24.11.2008 in case FIR No.121 dated 29.7.2010 under Sections 302/307/324/323/34 IPC registered at P.S. Baroda, District Sonepat, and is undergoing life imprisonment in Central Jail, Ambala, has filed the instant petition for directing the respondents to release him on parole to enable him to repair his house; with a further prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 20.10.2010 (Annexure P1) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ambala Range, Ambala Cantt, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole has been rejected. Pursuant to notice, a reply has been filed on behalf of Crl.W.P.No.2048 of 2010 (O&M) -2- respondents No.1 to 4 which is taken on record. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the reply, it has been averred by the respondents that the petitioner has applied for parole for house repairs and not for agricultural purpose. It has been further averred that the parole case of the petitioner was forwarded by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala to the District Magistrate, Sonepat. After getting report from the Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, District Magistrate, Sonepat rejected the parole case of the petitioner. In his report, Superintendent of Police intimated that the house of the petitioner needs repair and there is no other member in the family of the petitioner, except his mother and father, who are very old. In the last, it was intimated that the petitioner, who is undergoing life imprisonment in a murder case, if released on parole may create disturbance. On the basis of the said report, the parole case of the petitioner was not recommended by the District Magistrate, Sonepat. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the authorities have rejected the parole case of the petitioner without any basis. In the impugned order, it has been only stated that if the petitioner is released on parole, he may create disturbance. He further argued that without assigning any specific reason, the authorities have arbitrarily rejected the parole case of the petitioner. Undisputedly, in the present case, it has been admitted by the authorities that the house of the petitioner needs repair and except the parents of the petitioner, who are very old, there is no other member in the family of the petitioner who can get repair his house. It has been alleged by the petitioner that this is his first parole and he has not availed any kind of parole earlier. It has been further alleged that the petitioner is neither a Crl.W.P.No.2048 of 2010 (O&M) -3- habitual offender nor a previous convict. In view of these facts, the relief of parole has been declined only on the ground that the petitioner, who is undergoing life imprisonment in a murder case, if released on parole, may create disturbance. But there was no material before the authorities in rejecting the parole case of the petitioner. The order of rejection was passed by the authorities without any basis or material. Thus, we are of the opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. In our view, Section 3 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 has been enacted as a reformative process. It provides an opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into a useful citizen. Until and unless sufficient material is available with the authorities giving solid reasons for declining the temporary release of a convict on parole, such benefit should not be declined merely on flimsy grounds. Hence, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.10.2010 (Annexure P1) 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 December 21, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) vkg JUDGE