Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1257 (PNJ)

Rewati Raman v. State Of Haryana

2000-10-17

AMAR DUTT

body2000
Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. Rewati Raman who is undergoing imprisonment for life after his conviction under Section 364-A IPC had moved the respondents vide letter No. 12536 dated 16.11.1999 for grant of parole in order to enable him to carry out agricultural operations on his land which application was rejected on the ground that wife of the petitioner was getting the cultivation done with the help of brother of the petitioner. This rejection has prompted the petitioner to approach this Court after appending a certificate of the Gram Panchayat of his village indicating that only the petitioners wife and minor children reside in the house and the brother of the petitioner is not only separate in residence but also in cultivation. 2. In the reply which has been filed on behalf the respondents by the Superintendent District Jail, Rohtak, it was submitted that the case of the petitioner had been rejected for valid reasons and therefore there was no occasion of his being granted parole. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The case of the petitioner has evidently been rejected by the respondents on the ground that his wife had been able to get the cultivation on the petitioners land attended to by engaging labour. That may be so, but the fact that the wife of the petitioner had to get the land cultivated after employing agricultural labour that would by itself indicate the necessity of the petitioner for adequately carrying out agricultural operations on his land. For the sake of argument, if this submission is accepted that brother of the petitioner was helping in the cultivation of the land belonging to the petitioner even then I do not see any reason for rejecting the application as there is no guarantee that the brother of the petitioner would be taking optimum interest in cultivating the land of the petitioner. In any case, the presence of any additional hand would be of great help in carrying out agricultural operations and, therefore, this petition deserves to be allowed. 5. In any case, the presence of any additional hand would be of great help in carrying out agricultural operations and, therefore, this petition deserves to be allowed. 5. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of three weeks on his furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Mathura (UP) who shall order for the release of the petitioner on accepting the bail and surety bonds. The petitioner shall surrender before the jail authorities after the expiry of the period of parole. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during the period of parole and he shall avail the parole only for the purpose it was applied for. In case the petitioner violates any term of or condition of bail bond, it will be open to the State to take the petitioner into custody. Petition allowed.