Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Kumar Alias Tidda vs State Of Punjab And Others on 13 December, 2011
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron, Rameshwar Singh Malik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP No.2714 of 2011
Date of decision : 13.12.2011
Suresh Kumar alias Tidda
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Others
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK.
Present : Mr. S.P. Soi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Ritu Punj, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
***
S.S. SARON, J.
The Crl. Writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for directing the respondents to grant parole to the petitioner for a period of 15 days for making arrangements and participate in the marriage of his sister namely Seeta which is to be solemnized on 26.12.2011.
The petitioner has been convicted in case FIR No.58 dated 6.3.2010 registered at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar for the offences under Sections 302, 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code. He is undergoing life imprisonment at Central Jail Jalandhar. It is submitted that the marriage of the sister of the petitioner namely Seeta has been fixed for 26.12.2011. The petitioner being elder brother of Seeta daughter of Late Sh. Sharif Kumar, his presence in the marriage function is very essential as he is to make all the arrangements for the marriage. The invitation card (Annexure P1) of the marriage has been placed on CRWP No.2714 of 2011 [2] record. It is also submitted that the petitioner has applied for parole on 15.11.2011, however, the said application is pending.
Notice of motion was issued in the case for today. Ms. Ritu Punj, Addl. A.G., Punjab has filed verification report of the Superintendent Central Jail, Jalandhar regarding marriage of the sister of the petitioner namely Seeta. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jalandhar has verified that Seeta is the real sister of the petitioner Suresh Kumar alias Tidda and her marriage is to be solemnized with Ramandeep son of Karnail Singh on 26.12.2011 at their residence. The Panchayatnama dated 11.12.2011 has also been appended with the report. In terms of the custody certificate, the petitioner Suresh Kumar alias Tidda has undergone one year, six months and sixteen days of imprisonment as on 06.10.2011.
It may, therefore, be noticed that the fact that the marriage of the sister of the petitioner namely Seeta is to be solemnized on 26.12.2011 is not in dispute. Section 3(1) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, ("Act" - for short) provides for temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds. It is provided in terms of Section 3(1) (b) that the State Government may, in consultation with the District Magistrate 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 the marriage of the prisoner's son or daughter is to be celebrated. The present is not a case where the prisoner's son or daughter is to be celebrated. However, it is a case of the sister. Clause (d) of Section 3(1) enjoins that the release may be ordered if the State Government is satisfied that it is desirable so to do for any other sufficient cause. The marriage of Seeta who is the sister of the petitioner Suresh Kumar alias Tidda who is undergoing life CRWP No.2714 of 2011 [3] imprisonment would be a sufficient cause for his release as their father has since died.
Ms. Ritu Punj, Addl. A.G., Punjab has, however, submitted that the petitioner has recently availed of parole for four weeks during the period from 10.9.2011 to 6.10.2011. Therefore, he would not be entitled for release on parole as he cannot avail parole twice in a year. This Court, however, in the case of Satyavart v. State of Haryana, 1997 (3) RCR (Crl.) 672 which was a case under the Haryana Act held that restriction could not be imposed by executive instructions for seeking second parole. In Kirpal Singh v. State of Haryana, 1997 (3) RCR (Crl.) 735, also a case under the Haryana Act, this Court held that where the petitioner had already been granted two weeks' parole and shortly afterwards he is seeking second parole to attend the marriage of his sister's son, the second parole cannot be refused and that there was no restriction in the number of times to grant parole. Only restriction was that the total period of parole should not exceed four weeks. Therefore, it may be noticed that there is no provision in the Act by which the emergency parole sought by a prisoner in terms of Section 3(1) of the Act can be restricted to two paroles and that too by executive instructions. Therefore, merely because the petitioner has availed parole earlier during the period from 10.9.2011 to 6.10.2011 would not by itself be a ground to decline parole for the purpose of marriage of his sister.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has submitted an application dated 15.11.2011 supported by an affidavit for his release on parole for attending the marriage of his sister namely Seeta. However, the same has not been considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted Photostat copy of the application along with an affidavit, the Panchayatnama and the identity of Gurmito, mother of the petitioner. Copy of the same has also been CRWP No.2714 of 2011 [4] given to the learned State counsel. The petitioner indeed has a right of emergency parole in terms of Section 3(1)(d) of the Act. Therefore, it would be just and expedient that the application submitted by the petitioner on 15.11.2011 is considered by the competent authority in accordance with law within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The learned State counsel has also been furnished with copy of the application submitted by the petitioner and she shall also inform the competent authority to take steps to dispose of the application within one week.
The Crl. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Copy of this order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Special Secretary of this Bench for necessary compliance.
(S.S. SARON) JUDGE (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE December 13, 2011 amit