Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Babu Singh vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh And ... on 23 July, 2012

Author: Paramjeet Singh

Bench: Paramjeet Singh

Crl. Writ Petition No.1027 of 2012 (O&M)
                                                                         -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                    Crl. Writ Petition No.1027 of 2012 (O&M)
                    Date of decision: 23.07.2012

Babu Singh
                                                               ....Petitioner
                              Versus

Union Territory of Chandigarh and others
                                                           ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

Present: - Mr. Ashutosh Vig, Advocate, for the petitioner.
           Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3.
           Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

                    ****

PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)

Present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3(1)(a) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, seeking issuance of direction to respondent No.4 to submit report regarding the precautions which are required to be taken in the case of the petitioner, who has undergone emergency operation at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Researh, Chandigarh, on 11.4.2012 and pace maker has been put as support system, for which he has to be kept under monitoring and further constant medical care has to be provided to him and if necessary he has to be taken to PGI or some other specialised Medical Institute of repute in case of emergency and further to grant parole to the petitioner for two months i.e. upto 28.7.2012.

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has filed short reply on behalf of respondent No.4 in Court today, which is taken on record. Crl. Writ Petition No.1027 of 2012 (O&M) -2- Para 3 of the short reply reads as under: -

"3. That the patient had complete heart block sclera degenerative for which dual chamber pacemaker has been implanted. He is asymptomatic now and only requires follow up. He can perform his day-to-day activities."

In view of this, there is no ground to grant parole to the petitioner as prayed for.

Dismissed.

(Paramjeet Singh) Judge July 23, 2012 R.S.