Parlahad vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 May, 2012

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Parlahad vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 May, 2012

Bench: Paramjeet Singh

Crl.W.P. No. 275 of 2012                                                      -1-

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                                       Crl.W.P. No. 275 of 2012 (O/M)
                                       Date of decision : 3.5.2012

Parlahad                                                  ...... Petitioner
                                       Versus
State of Haryana and others                               ..... Respondents

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH.

Present :    Mr. Varinder Singh Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner.
             Mr. Amandeep Singh, AAG Haryana.

PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)

Present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to respondents to grant four weeks parole to the petitioner to do necessary repairs of his house as the condition of the house is deteriorating day by day. Further prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 28.12.2011 (Annexure-P-1) passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (respondent No. 3).

House repair parole has been declined to the petitioner by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (respondent No. 3), vide order dated 28.12.2011 (Annexure-P-1) on two grounds, viz. (i) that as per report of the Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad convict has been involved in different cases (ii) that if he is released, there is apprehensions of breach of peace, possibility of committing heinous crime and there is possibility that petitioner on completion of parole may not surrender before the jail authorities concerned. The fact that the house of the petitioner requires repairs, is however not in dispute.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since there is no basis for the said apprehensions of breach of peace, committing of heinous crime and possibility of not returning back on completion of parole, Crl.W.P. No. 275 of 2012 -2- the impugned order declining parole to the petitioner is liable to be set aside. Besides, he referred to 1996(3) RCR (Crl.) 230 Chand Singh Versus State of Punjab, wherein it has been held as under :-

"It is the duty of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police to maintain law and order in the area. If there is any apprehension for breach of peace, it is the duty of the police and the District Magistrate to look into the matter and give protection to the people, who are expecting such danger from the release of the accused on parole. The law laid down is that no body can be released if his release is detrimental to the security of the country or there is likelihood that his release in any way will endanger the security or integrity of the country. The mere allegation that there is apprehension of breach of peace is no criteria on the basis of which the Inspector General of Prisons can refuse the release of the petitioner on temporary parole for a specified period as laid down in the section."

So, as per what was held in this judgment, parole cannot be declined to the petitioner on the grounds mentioned in the impugned order.

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 28.12.2011 (Annexure-P-1) passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (respondent No. 3) is set aside and respondents are directed to allow four weeks parole to the petitioner, in accordance with the rules, subject to fulfillment of the required conditions.

Disposed of.

(PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE 3.5.2012 sjks

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court