Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh @ Suresh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 July, 2023
Author: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal
2023:PHHC:090571 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 104 CRWP-7046-2023 DATE OF DECISION: 19.07.2023 SURESH @ SURESH KUMAR ... Petitioner (s) Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Ankit Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh Virk, Senior DAG, Haryana. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner is seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 05.06.2023 (Annexure P-2) whereby his application for grant of 10 weeks of regular parole has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC in FIR No.378 dated 29.10.2009, registered at Police Station Sadar Bahadargarh and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years. He has undergone the sentence of over 2 years. The petitioner had suffered a paralytical attack on 16.04.2023 and is unable to move from the left side. He cannot lift his left hand and leg and is almost bed-ridden. He was admitted in PGIMS Rohtak for treatment and after discharge, he was confined in District Jail, Jhajjar. He requires full time Attendant and other help which is difficult to get in the jail.
3. Custody certificate filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record which indicates that the petitioner has undergone a sentence of 2 years, 4 months and 6 days including remission out of the total sentence of 3 years.
SWARN JIT SINGH 2023.07.20 16:48 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-7046-2023 2 Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is suffering from paralysis but he is being accorded proper treatment in the Jail hospital.
4. Heard. The case of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the medical condition of the petitioner is not serious and the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he had earlier been released on regular parole for 10 weeks on 10.01.2023 and therefore, he cannot get more than 10 weeks of regular parole in a calendar year as per the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners. (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is also stated in the impugned order that his case is not covered under Section 5 of the Act. Section 5 is reproduced hereunder:-
"5, (1) The competent authority shall grant emergency parole to a convicted prisoner subject to such conditions and procedure as specified under sections 11 and 12. Emergency parole shall be granted to a convicted prisoner any time irrespective of the period of sentence undergone by him if a member of the convicted prisoner's family has died or is in serious condition or the convicted prisoner himself is in serious condition. (2) The competent authority shall verify the facts through in-
charge of the police station concerned or through a jail officer not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent Jail who shall submit his report within twenty-four hours. The facts of the serious condition of the convicted prisoner or his family member shall be certified by the Medical Officer concerned and countersigned by the Civil Surgeon concerned.
(3) The period for which a convicted prisoner may be released under this section shall be decided by the competent authority SWARN JIT SINGH 2023.07.20 16:48 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-7046-2023 3 which shall not exceed four weeks in a calendar year cumulatively and the period may be in parts.
(4) The period of release under this section shall not count towards the actual sentence of a prisoner. No ordinary remission shall be granted for this period."
(emphasis supplied)
5. It is, thus, manifest that irrespective of the period of sentence undergone by the prisoner, he can be released on parole if his condition is serious. The petitioner had suffered a paralytical attack and had been earlier admitted in the PGIMS, Rohtak. The petitioner was released on parole earlier and did not misuse its concession and had promptly surrendered on its expiry. Immediately after surrender, he had suffered a paralytical attack and had been earlier admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak. In the impugned order, reference has been made to the medical report which indicates that he is suffering from left hemiparesis (paralysis) with prior history of diabetes and hypertension. It is also stated that the patient is stable and his condition from hemiparesis (paralysis) is improving but there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner can function without any help. The authorities cannot be insensitive to the plight of the petitioner.
6. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.06.2023 (Annexure P-2) is set aside. The petitioner shall be granted parole for a period of 04 weeks subject to his furnishing necessary surety bonds to the satisfaction of the competent authority. He shall surrender in the concemed Jail by 05:00 p.m. after expiry of period of 04 weeks from the date of his release on parole.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE 19.07.2023 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes /No Whether reportable : Yes/No SWARN JIT SINGH 2023.07.20 16:48 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document