Crl. Writ Petition No.1527 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Writ Petition No.1527 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 27, 2010 Vishal Kumar .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent ***** Present: Ms. Bhupinder Pal Kaur Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, DAG, Punjab. S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing directions to the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for four weeks in connection with the marriage of his sister-in-law, which is to be solemnized on 29.8.2010. Reply by way of an affidavit of Amarjit Singh Sandhu, Superintendent District Jail, Faridkot on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 has been filed in Court today, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the grant of parole in view of the provisions of Section 3 (1) (d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (Act for short). Learned counsel for the State has referred to the reply and submitted that the petitioner was convicted vide order dated 12.06.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot for the offences under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C and 489-D, IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. It is submitted that in terms Crl. Writ Petition No.1527 of 2010 (O&M) 2 of the letter dated 10.1.2000 (Annexure R-I), Inspector General of Police, Punjab had submitted that all convicts are eligible for parole after completion of four months of actual sentence, therefore, the case of the petitioner is liable to be considered for grant of parole after completion of four months actual sentence. I have given my consideration to the matter. The petitioner has been convicted recently on 12.06.2010. He prays for granting parole to attend the marriage of his sister-in-law. In order to appreciate the contention the provisions of Section 3(d) of the Act may be adverted to, which read as under: “The State Government may, in consultation with the District Magistrate and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified in sub-section (2) any prisoner if the State Government is satisfied that-- (a) a member of the prisoner's family had died or is seriously ill; or (b) the marriage of the prisoner's son or daughter is to be celebrated; or (c) the temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operation on his land and no friend of the prisoner or a member of the prisoner's family is prepared to help him in this behalf in his absence; (d) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause:” A perusal of the above shows that the legislature has Crl. Writ Petition No.1527 of 2010 (O&M) 3 made provisions for the grant of parole in the event the marriage of the prisoner's son or daughter is to be celebrated. Clause (d) relates to grant of parole in case it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause. The sister-in-law i.e. the sister of the wife of the petitioner, namely, Rubi is to be married on 29.08.2010. The relationship is not so close as to grant the concession of parole. Besides, in terms of the letter dated 10.1.2010 (Annexure R-I), it has been stated that it is not appropriate to take steps by Superintendent Jail for initiating the process for grant of parole very early because the Jail Authorities are not familiar with the behaviour of the convicts in a short time. Therefore, it was decided that case for parole be considered after completion of four months actual sentence. In the facts and circumstances and in view of the above, no ground for parole is made out. The criminal writ petition is accordingly dismissed. August 27, 2010 (S.S. SARON) id JUDGE