Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petition has been opposed by respondents in terms of reply filed by way of affidavit of Lakhbir Singh, Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. In the reply respondents have submitted that the petitioner is facing trial in 13 cases in which he is on bail while the petitioner was also involved in 40 other cases out of which he was acquitted in 38 cases and convicted and sentenced to the period already undergone in 2 cases. The petitioner had applied for furlough which was declined by the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 06.12.2019 (Annexure R-1). The mother of the petitioner sent application for grant of emergency parole on the ground of illness of his father which was declined vide order dated 13.11.2019 (Annexure R-2). The petitioner falls in the category of hardcore criminal in view of his conviction under Sections 397 and 420 of the IPC in case FIR No. 116 dated 23.02.2016 registered at Police Station City, Hansi. The petitioner has not completed five years of imprisonment after becoming hardcore prisoner after his conviction in the above said case as required for initiation of parole case as per the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 2015. The S.H.O. concened 4 of 8 CRM-W-6-2020 in/and had reported that the brother of the petitioner and other family members of the petitioner are capable to take care of the father of the petitioner and that the petitioner is habitual of committing heinous crimes again and again and if he is released then he may commit crime again. There was also strong apprehension of disturbance of peace in the village. Vide order dated 19.11.2019 passed in CWP 32210 of 2019, the petitioner was allowed parole which was extended up to 23.12.2019. The petitioner surrendered on the due date in time. The petitioner was again granted parole vide order dated 27.12.2019 in CRWP No. 2561-2019 which was extended up to 17.01.2020. There is no provision for extension of parole. In CWP No. 483 of 2012 the Division Bench of this Court has held that if the statutory rules impose a legal bar on consideration of the case of the petitioners for temporary release, the same ought not to be overcome by a judicial order. Therefore, the application may be dismissed.