Crl.W.P.No.1808 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.W.P.No.1808 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:October 11, 2010 Surender .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.H.N.Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.M.Anand,Addl.A.G.. Haryana. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3(1)(a) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act') is for issuance of direction to the respondents to release the petitioner on emergency parole for four weeks on the ground that his wife is pregnant and the due date of delivery is 15.10.2010. Reply on behalf of the respondent-State has been filed today in Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Petitioner-accused is undergoing sentence of five years in FIR No.358/1993, dated 20.11.1993, under Sections 392/397, Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak, and sentence of three years in FIR No.363/1993 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak. He has already undergone three years six months and four days of sentence including under trial period and excluding parole period. He has already availed four months and 13 days parole after his conviction. It has been specifically averred in reply filed on behalf of the Crl.W.P.No.1808 of 2010 (O&M) -2- State that petitioner has availed four weeks parole from 17.2.2010 to 18.3.2010 and six weeks parole from 27.7.2010 to 8.9.2010 in this calendar year and hence he is not entitled for another parole as per Sub Rule 3 of Rule 11 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter to be called as the `Rules) framed under the Act. It has been contended by leaned counsel for the petitioner that it is an emergent cause for the petitioner to be released on parole as he has to look after his wife. Section 3 of the Act provides for release of a convict on parole, which reads as under: “Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds.-(1) The State Government may, in consultation with the District Magistrate or any other officer appointed in this behalf, by notification in the Official Gazette 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 the prisoner himself is seriously ill; or (b) the marriage of the prisoner himself, his son, daughter, grandson, grand-daughter, brother, sister, sister'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 or his father's undivided land actually in possession of the prisoner; or (d) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause. (2) The period for which a prisoner may be released shall be determined by the State Government so as not to exceed- Crl.W.P.No.1808 of 2010 (O&M) -3- (a) where the prisoner is to be released on the grounds specified in clause (a) of sub section (1), three weeks; (b) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (b) or clause (d) of sub- section (1), four weeks; and (c ) where the prisoner is to be released on the grounds specified in clause (c ) of sub-Section (1), six weeks: Provided that the temporary release under Clause (c ) can be availed more than once during the year, which shall not, however, cumulatively exceed six weeks. (3) The period of release under this Section shall not count towards the total period of sentence of a prisoner. 4. The State Government may, by notification, authorise any officer to exercise its powers under this section in respect of all or any of the ground specified thereunder.” However, Government of Haryana framed Rules under the said Act. Relevant Rule 8 of the said Rules provides that the following be considered as sufficient cause as provided under Section 3(1)(d) of the Act. The same reads as under:- “8. Sufficient cause.[sections 3(1)(d) and 10(2)(d)].-Under Section 3(1)(d) “sufficient cause” may be considered from amongst the following reasons, namely:- (i)admission in school/colleges/professional institutions of the dependents of the convict; (ii)medically scheduled delivery of wife of the convict; (iii)house repairs/new construction of house owned by the convict. Parole for house repair shall be granted only once in three years; (iv)Marriage of prisoner's brother's son or daughter to be celebrated in case his brother is not alive” Hence, medically scheduled delivery of wife of a convict can Crl.W.P.No.1808 of 2010 (O&M) -4- be said to be a sufficient cause for his release on parole. However, Sub Rule 3 of Rule 11 of the said Rules provides that a convict can be granted parole only for once under Section 3(1)(d) during a calendar year. The same reads as under: “(3) Under Section 3(2)(b) a convict shall be granted parole only for once either under section 3(1)(b) or Section 3(1)(d) and not for both separately during the calendar year except as provided under rule 8 as above.” In the present case, admitted facts are that petitioner-accused already availed parole twice during this calendar year. He has availed parole from 17.2.2010 to 18.3.2010 and from 27.7.2010 to 8.9.2010. He has just returned from parole about one month ago. The factum of pregnancy of his wife and the expected date of delivery was already in his knowledge. However, despite that he has chosen to avail parole from 27.7.2010 to 8.9.2010. Hence, in view of these facts, and in view of Section 3(1)(d) of the Act and Sub Rule 3 of Rule 11, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the competent authority in declining the request of the petitioner for his further release on parole, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. 11.10.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge