Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajender Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 2 November, 2017
Author: Jaishree Thakur
Bench: Jaishree Thakur
CRWP No. 119 of 2017 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP No. 119 of 2017
Date of decision: 02.11.2017
Rajender Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present:- Mr. Randeep S. Dhull, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.
JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3 (1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 and Rule 8(iii) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 2007 for issuing a writ of Certiorari for quashing of the order dated 02.11.2016, passed by the Commissioner, Division Gurugram, by which the petitioner was declined parole for the purpose of repair of his house.
Counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is entitled for grant of parole to get his house repaired.
Upon notice, reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 in Court today. The same is taken on record. In reply, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to parole as he had overstayed the earlier parole granted. It is also submitted that the site, where the house of the petitioner is situated, was inspected wherein it was found that the house was in dilapidated condition and had collapsed about a year and a 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 07-11-2017 00:25:11 ::: CRWP No. 119 of 2017 -2- quarter back and that the debris had been cleared by the family members. Therefore, the question of repair of the said house would not arise.
Faced with this, counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the instant petition with a prayer that the petitioner will move a fresh application seeking parole on the ground of rebuilding/construction of his residential house and the same should be entertained as expeditiously as possible. It is also argued that as per the aforesaid rules itself, the petitioner would be entitled to parole as he was arrested as far back as 26.05.2014 and a period of two years has since then lapsed. In this regard, he also places reliance upon a judgment rendered in CRWP-443-2016 titled as Manoj vs. State of Haryana and others, wherein, in the similar circumstances, a person, who had not surrendered and overstayed his parole, was allowed parole in terms of Rule 10 after the expiry of the period of two years.
In view of above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that in case the petitioner moves a fresh application for grant of parole along with a certified copy of this order, the same will be decided in its perspective and in light of the judgment passed in CRWP- 443-2016, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the application.
02.11.2017 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 07-11-2017 00:25:12 :::