The court rejected the prayer for agricultural parole as the petitioner was a hardcore prisoner and did not complete the requisite custody period: High court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

 on 05 07 CRWP 1572 20201206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP 1572 2020Date of decision : 02.07.2021Rahul ..... PetitionerVersusState of Haryana and others ..... RespondentsCORAM :HON BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present:Mr. Akshaydeep Singh Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Bangar Advocate for the petitioner.Mr. Vivek Saini Addl. AG Haryana.[ The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencingsince the proceedings are being conducted in virtual court ] RAJESH BHARDWAJ J. The petitioner has filed the present criminal writ petition underArticle 226 227 of the Constitution of India in the nature of certioraripraying for quashing the impugned order dated 18.11.2019 annexed asAnnexure P 1 wherein the prayer for grant of six weeks parole to thepetitioner was declined by respondent No.4. It has been further prayed thatthe petitioner be granted six weeks agriculture parole for maintaining andharvesting the wheat crop.As per the facts narrated in the petition the petitioner wasconvicted and sentenced for 12 years rigorous imprisonment in FIR No.28dated 09.02.2016 under Sections 363 376 of Indian Penal Code Section 6POCSO Act and Section 3(1)of SC ST Act registered at Police StationRadaur District Yamuna Nagar vide order dated 24.09.2018 by AdditionalSessions Judge Yamuna Nagar. The petitioner preferred an appeal bearing on 05 07 CRWP 1572 20202No.CRA D 6999 2018 before this Hon ble Court which is “Admitted” andpending adjudication. The father of the petitioner filed an application(Annexure P 2) for grant of six weeks parole for his son i.e. the presentpetitioner. It was received in the office of the respondent authorities on13.11.2019 and a conscious decision was taken on the application filed bythe father of the petitioner. For the endorsement of prayer in question thepetitioner has also placed on record Annexure P 3 wherein the GramPanchayat and Namberdar have also supported the prayer in question.We have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the recordof the case.The order dated 18.11.2019 impugned by the petitioner has beenperused by this Court. A perusal of the same reveals that during the custody a mobile phone was recovered from the petitioner on account of which FIRNo.8919 under Section 42 of Prison Act and FIR No.7917 under Section 42 Prison Act were registered against him at Police StationCity Jagadhri. It has been mentioned in the order that on account of thesame the petitioner falls in the category of Hardcore Prisoners as per ParoleAmended Act 2015. In addition to this it has been further mentioned thatin view of The Haryana Good Conduct Prisonersno more survives as on today. The petitioner if so advised can move the authority concerned with a fresh application. In view of the observations made hereinabove we find itappropriate to dismiss the petition as infructuous however with liberty tothe petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for the redressal of hisgrievances in accordance with law. ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) JUDGE JUDGE 02.07.2021 m. sharmaWhether speaking reasonedYes No Whether Reportable Yes No 

Summary: A criminal writ petition (it is an order given by the higher courts to a lower court directing them to act or stop them from certain activity) under certiorari (writ, where a higher court reviews an order given in the lower court) was filed. However, the request for agricultural parole was rejected by the courts. This judgment and final order were given on 2/07/2021 by the high court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh consisting of Hon’ble MR. Justice Jaswant Singh and Hon’ble MR. justice Rajesh Bhardwaj, in the case Rahul vs. state of Haryana and others CRWP-1572-2020 the court proceedings were held through a virtual platform due to COVID -19. A prayer was given to the courts for quashing the order dated 18/11/2019.  Mr. Rahul (the petitioner) had filed for a criminal writ petition under article 226/227 of the constitution of India in the nature of certiorari.   An order was passed on 18/11/2019 where respondent No. 4 declined the prayer to grant six weeks parole to the petitioner. The petitioner here further prayed for the courts to grant six-week agriculture parole for maintaining and harvesting the wheat crop. According to the petition filed, An FIR No. 28 was filed on 09/02/2016   where the petitioner (Rahul) was convicted and sentenced to 12 years rigorous imprisonment under section 363 of the Indian penal code i.e., Kidnapping and maiming a minor for purposes of begging and under section 376 IPC which states the punishment for rape. Also, under section 6 of the POCSO Act (POCSO Act,2012 is a comprehensive law to provide protection for the children from the offenses of sexual assault and harassment and safeguarding the interest of the children) section 6 of the POCSO Act, punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. He was also convicted under section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST act registered in the police station. The father of the petitioner filed an application to grant six weeks of parole for his convicted son (Rahul, the present petitioner). The petitioner further placed a record wherein the gram panchayat and Namberdar have supported the prayer laid by the petitioner. The case further reveals that an FIR was filed against the petitioner at the police station in the city Jagadhri, under Section 42 of the prisoner’s act (Penalty for introduction or removal of prohibited articles into or from prison and communication with prisoners) because, during the imprisonment of the petitioner, the custody of a mobile phone was recovered from the petitioner. The order made by the previous court has mentioned that according to the parole amened act,2015 the petitioner falls in the category of hardcore prisoners.  In view of the Haryana good conduct prisoners (temporary release) amended act,2015, a prisoner can be released only after the completion of two years of custody as under trial and three years of custody after conviction therefore a total of five years of custody must be completed by the prisoner. Here the petitioner (Rahul) had completed only two years under trial and hence short of three years after conviction.