Criminal Misc. No.M-744 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-744 of 2008 Date of decision : 22.10.2008 Ravinder .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent-State. **** S. D. ANAND, J. The competent authority declined the parole plea of the petitioner by relying upon order dated 3.5.2007 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court (Surya Kant, J.) in Criminal Misc. No.28880-M of 2006- Lakhan Lal Vs. State of Haryana and others. The premise upon which the parole plea of the petitioner- prisoner was declined is apparently misconceived. In the case above quoted, Surya Kant, J. had passed that order by noticing that a particular set of prisoners “have been availing all kinds of paroles liberally”. After observing that “it appears that the respondent-authorities have failed to follow strict and uniform parameters while considering the cases of convicts for their release on parole or furlough, as the case may be”, the Court held “that no parole or furlough (except emergency parole) shall be granted to respondents No. 6 to 10 in future without prior permission of this Court.” Thereafter, a similar parole plea raised by another prisoner Criminal Misc. No.M-744 of 2008 -2- came up before another Coordinate Bench ( Mahesh Grover, J.). After noticing the circumstances under which the accused in the relevant case (Criminal Misc. No.28880-M of 2006-Lakhan Lal Vs. State of Haryana and others) were abusing the concession in connivance with the authorities and availing themselves of the period of parole/furlough, the Bench (Mahesh Grover, J.) directed the competent authority to “re-consider the matter afresh without being influenced by directions dated 3.5.2007”. Thereafter, a similar matter came up before me. In that case, the following observations were made by this Court :- “In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The Competent Authority is directed to decide the agricultural parole plea of the petitioner-prisoner afresh within one month from today. In disposing of the parole plea of the petitioner, the competent authority shall not be fettered by the observations made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. No.28880-M of 2006. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the competent authority.” In the light thereof, the impugned order is quashed. The petition shall stand allowed. The Competent Authority is directed to decide the plea of the petitioner-prisoner, for release on furlough, afresh within fifteen days from today. In disposing of the parole plea of the petitioner, the competent authority shall not be fettered by the observations made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. No.28880-M of 2006. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the competent authority. Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary. October 22, 2008 (S.D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE