Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan @Alok vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 November, 2010
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Writ Petition No. 962 of 2010(O&M)
Date of Decision: November 18, 2010.
Krishan @Alok
...... PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others.
...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. S.S.Tiwana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. P.M.Anand, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
*****
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short the 'Act') for release of the petitioner for six weeks on agricultural parole.
Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent-State. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record.
CRWP No.762 of 2010 2
Admitted facts are that, petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in FIR No. 76 dated 28.03.1991 under Sections 392/397/302/34 IPC, Police Station Sampla, District Rohtak by learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide order dated 13.05.1996. He filed appeal against the said judgment, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15.09.2005. Petitioner has undergone more than six years one month and 15 days of sentence as on 27.09.2010 and he has not availed any parole or furlough after conviction. Request of the petitioner for his release on agricultural parole was initiated by Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal as he was entitled as per rules. However, the same was declined by the competent authority vide impugned order Annexure R2 on the ground that release of petitioner was not recommended by District Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar.
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 CRWP No.762 of 2010 3 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), 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."
Bare perusal of Section 6 of the Act shows that release of petitioner on parole can be refused only on the ground that the same is likely CRWP No.762 of 2010 4 to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of the public order. In this case, petitioner has already undergone more than 6 years of the sentence. He has not availed any type of parole or furlough. It has been mentioned in the reply filed on behalf of State that his conduct and behaviour has remained satisfactory inside the jail. Competent authority refused to release the petitioner on parole on the ground that his case was not recommended by the concerned District Magistrate. However, in the report of District Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar it has been simply mentioned that Superintendent of Police, Gautambudh Nagar has not recommended the release of petitioner. In the impugned order, Annexure R2 it has only been mentioned that there is apprehension that he may disobey the parole rules if petitioner is released on parole. However, the apprehension is not based on any material. In view of the fact that behaviour of the petitioner in the jail remained satisfactory and he has not availed any parole or furlough, it cannot be said that impugned order is justified on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 6 of the Act and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Hence, in view of these facts, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.06.2009, Annexure R2 passed by the competent authority refusing release of the petitioner on agricultural parole is set-aside.
Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the present petitioner for his release on agricultural parole in the light of the observations of this Court made above, as per Act and Rules and instructions on the point, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Disposed of accordingly.
CRWP No.762 of 2010 5
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 18, 2010. JUDGE 'om' Note: Whether referred to reporter? Yes / No