Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Of Haryana vs Nirmal Singh And Another on 29 September, 1998 Equivalent citations: 1999CRILJ662

sons. It is further averred that he was on parole for a period of 1 year, 5 months and 15 days. This period is also ... make a jail. When a prisoner is release on parole it is a licensed enlargement on certain conditions. He is not a free bird

parole of a prisoner on his executing a bond in addition to a bond from a surety, the Superintendent shall send the prisoner on parole ... A, Cr.P.C. states that a person sentenced to life imprisonment should have to undergo a minimum period of 14 years and only thereafter

justified. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that parole leave is recognized as a statutory right of the prison inmates as per Rule ... years or less, on their application shall be favourably considered for release on emergency parole by the Superintendent of Prison for a period

released on parole, short term bail. 5. Sri A.K. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. has submitted that after conviction if parole or licence ... A.G.A. and we find force in the submissions. The person serving sentence under a Court's judgment order is granted parole

jail i.e. for a period of more than 10 years and that he was never released on bail or parole. It is argued that ... makes a better ground for him to be released on parole as he has continuously remained in judicial custody for more than 10 years

absconded from parole/furlough/interim bail etc. for more than three days, last ten years, and have undergone 12 years of actual imprisonment including ... a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life

convicted for life sentence in the murder case of a Sarpanch who is a public servant. Hence, the case of the said prisoner attracts barring ... Having regard to the factors, namely, (i) overstaying on parole for a period of 14 years, 9 months and 24 days; (ii) Medical Board

petitioner under para 2 (a) (viii) instead of para 2 (a) (xiii) of the 2002 Policy. Thirdly, matter of jumping parole was considered ... declined being a heinous crime. Even for category of heinous crime State has put a bar of 20 years imprisonment and the petitioner has undergone

that petitioner is 72 years old and he is an undertrial prisoner and is not a convict and, facility of parole or other kind