Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satpal vs State Of Haryana on 19 January, 2018
CRWP No.55 of 2018 -1-
134
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRWP No.55 of 2018
Date of Decision: 19.01.2018
****
Satpal
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA
Present: Ms. Kompal Preet Handa, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
SUDIP AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Reply is filed on behalf of the State by way of Affidavit of Superintendent of Prison, District Prison, Karnal. Be taken on record.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The petitioner in the present case was convicted for the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with F.I.R. No.9, dated 05.01.2004, and his appeal was dismissed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, on 13.09.2017. He was separately convicted of the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The maximum sentences awarded to him in the aforesaid cases were imprisonment for three years and two years, respectively, apart from fine.
4. The petitioner now seeks his pre-mature release on parole on 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 26-01-2018 08:54:51 ::: CRWP No.55 of 2018 -2- the ground that he has to participate in the "Teharvi Ceremony" of the deceased wife of his younger brother.
5. Ld. State Counsel has drawn attention of the Court to Section 2(b) read with Section 3(1)(a) of the Parole Act to highlight that a prisoner is entitled to Emergency Parole only in the event of serious illness or death of one of his family members and the description of "member of prisoner's family" does not include wife of his brother.
6. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to pre-mature parole due to such statutory bar. In any case even otherwise, he is not entitled to parole under Rule 4(1) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 2017, which requires a minimum imprisonment of one year before grant of parole can be considered.
7. In view of the statutory bar, which restricts release of the petitioner at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant him benefit of Emergency Parole.
8. Dismissed.
19.01.2018 (SUDIP AHLUWALIA)
Apurva JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/ No
2. Whether reportable : Yes/ No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 26-01-2018 08:54:52 :::