Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naresh vs State Of U.T. Chandigarh And Others on 19 January, 2010
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Jora Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-30440 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION : 21.01.2010
Naresh
... PETITIONER
Versus
State of U.T. Chandigarh and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. J.S. Bains, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Jasmandeep, Advocate,
for U.T. Chandigarh.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
The petitioner, who is a life convict, undergoing imprisonment at Model Jail, Burail, Chandigarh, has filed this petition for issuing directions to the respondents to grant him four weeks parole to meet his family members under Section 3 (1) (d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). He is in jail since the year 2004. He has four children between the age of 8 years to 11 years and a wife, who are residing in Kumar Mohalla, Jagatpura, Police Station Mohali, in a rented house.
In the instant case, the petitioner filed an application to the jail Crl. Misc. No. M-30440 of 2009 -2- authorities for granting him parole to meet his family members. His application has been dismissed vide order dated 22.1.2009 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that the District Magistrate, SAS Nagar, did not recommend his release on parole, because no person from the locality, where the petitioner and his family members have been living, is ready to take responsibility of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a migrant labourer and he and his family members have been living in the aforesaid locality in a rented house for the last more than 12 years. He further submits that in case, the benefit of parole is granted to the petitioner, he is ready to furnish the requisite personal bond and surety bond to surrender in the jail after completion of the parole period. Learned counsel argued that the denial of benefit of parole to the petitioner under the provisions of the Act on the aforesaid ground is totally arbitrary and unreasonable and the petitioner wants to meet his four children and his wife, who are residing in a rented house in Kumar Mohalla, Jagatpura, Police Station Mohali.
In the written statement, filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, the similar ground has been taken, on account of which the prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole has been declined by the authorities vide order dated 22.1.2009 (Annexure P-1).
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The release of a convict on parole is a wing of reformative Crl. Misc. No. M-30440 of 2009 -3- process. It provides an opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into a useful citizen. Section 4 of the Act has been enacted as a reformative measure, as a prisoner has to show good conduct while in incarceration. This concept has been introduced with intention to enable the prisoner to have family association, to maintain family and social ties and to avoid ill effect of continuous prison life. It is true that a convict cannot claim parole as a matter of right, but this Court can direct the authorities to re-consider the case of a convict, if his prayer for releasing him on parole for a short period has been unreasonably and arbitrarily rejected without any cogent reason.
In the instant case, the petitioner is in custody for the last about six months. His conduct in the jail during this period is good. It has also not been disputed that four children of the petitioner, between the age of 8 years to 11 years, along with his wife, are residing in a rented house in Kumar Mohalla, Jagatpura, Police Station Mohali. The only ground for rejection of the benefit of parole, as given in the reply, is that no body in the locality is ready to take responsibility of the petitioner. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before coming out on parole, the petitioner is ready to furnish personal bond and surety bond of some respectable person of the locality and the conditional order of parole can be passed in this regard. He further submits that the petitioner will also report in the Police Station of the area every week and in the event of committing any illegal act by him, his parole may be cancelled. It is not disputed that Crl. Misc. No. M-30440 of 2009 -4- under Section 3 (1) (d) of the Act, a convict can be granted parole for a period of four weeks to meet his family members.
In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that rejection of the prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole to him in order to meet his family members, on the ground that no body in the locality is ready to take his responsibility, is arbitrary. Keeping in view the long custody period of the petitioner, his good conduct in the jail and the fact that earlier, he has never been given the benefit of parole, the authorities are required to consider his prayer for release on parole in a positive manner. In our opinion, the authorities can pass the conditional order for releasing the petitioner on parole to meet his family members subject to his furnishing personal bond and surety bond of some respectable person of the locality, with a further condition that he will report to the Police Station of the area every week and will maintain good conduct during the period of parole. Thus, the impugned order dated 22.1.2009 (Annexure P-1) is set aside and the respondents are directed to re-consider the prayer of the petitioner regarding his release on parole, within a period of one month, and pass necessary order in accordance with law, while keeping in view the aforesaid observations.
Petition is allowed, accordingly.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
January 21, 2010 ( JORA SINGH )
ndj JUDGE