CRWP NO.1657 OF 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP NO.1657 OF 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 10.12.2010 Suresh Kumar ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.HS Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.PM Anand, Addl.AG, Haryana RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(ORAL) The present petition has been filed by petitioner Suresh Kumar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 26.3.2010 Annexure P-2 passed by respondent no.1, whereby the parole case of the petitioner was rejected and further praying for grant of four weeks emergency parole under Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). Reply has already been filed on behalf of respondent-State. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Admitted facts are that petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo of RI for ten years in case FIR No.369 dated 10.8.1995 registered under Section 17 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Asandh, District Karnal, by learned trial Court on 15/17.12.1999. His appeal was dismissed by this Court in the year 2007 and since then he is CRWP NO.1657 OF 2010 2 continuing in custody. Earlier he was confined in District Jail, Karnal and thereafter, he was shifted to Central Jail, Ambala on 24.8.2009. He has availed only one emergency parole for two weeks from 30.9.2010 to 15.10.2010 on the death of his mother and he surrendered in jail after completion of parole. Section 3 of the Act provides that a convict can be released on parole which reads as under:- “3. 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 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 petitioner. (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- (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), CRWP NO.1657 OF 2010 3 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 the sentence of a prisoner. (4) The State Government may, by notification, authorize any officer to exercise its powers under this section in respect of all or any other ground specified thereunder.” Further Section 6 of the Act provides for the grounds on which the parole can be refused, which reads as under:- “6. Prisoners not entitled to be released in certain cases. – Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4, no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act if, on the report of the District Magistrate, the State Government or an officer authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.” The present case for release on parole for house repair was duly recommended by the Superintendent Jail, as he was entitled as per rules. However, the same was declined by the competent authority on the recommendation of concerned District Magistrate that no family member of the petitioner resides in the house, which is lying locked. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier mother of the petitioner used to reside in the said house, who expired during the pendency of this petition and that he also availed emergency CRWP NO.1657 OF 2010 4 parole for two weeks after the death of his mother. Further contends that wife and children of the petitioner reside in Mohali. Further contends that the house belongs to the petitioner lying locked requires repair and that he has not availed any parole, though he has been continuing in custody for the last three years. It is further submitted that the request of the petitioner for his release on house repair parole has not been rejected on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 6 of the Act. As per reply filed by Superintendent Jail, the conduct of the petitioner remained satisfactory in jail and hence, he recommended for his release on parole. Hence, in view of these facts, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.3.2010, Annexure R2 passed by the competent authority refusing release of the petitioner on house repair parole is set-aside. Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the present petitioner for his release on parole in the light of the observations of this Court made above, as per the Act and the Rules and the instructions on the point, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10.12.2010 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE