Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 207 (PNJ)

Om Parkash v. State of Haryana

2000-02-18

AMAR DUTT

body2000
JUDGMENT Amar Dutt, J. - The petitioner, Om Parkash, had moved the Superintendent District Jail, Sonepat, for grant of 4 weeks parole in order to perform after death ceremonies of his wife and repair his house which was stated to be in deplorable condition. 2. The Superintendent of the Jail had withheld the application on the ground that on the previous occasion, when the petitioner was released on parole, he had over-stayed for 13 days and, therefore, committed a jail offence. 3. According to the petitioner, this ground was not available to deny him the parole because after his over-stay on two occasions; one on medical grounds enabling him to attend to his ailing wife and the second for 6 weeks for agricultural purposes the petitioner had been granted parole. In this view of the matter, as the Gram Panchayat has certified regarding the condition of his house through a Panchayatnama Annexure P3 filed with the petition, the petitioner prays that a direction should be issued to the respondents for granting him parole for 4 weeks. 4. In the written reply, the Superintendent of the Jail has submitted that the petitioner was convicted on 20.11.1998. He had also availed of 2 weeks parole in order to attend the marriage of his brother and was required to report back on 7.5.1999, but he had overstayed for 13 days. He was again released on parole on 12.6.1999 to 23.6.1999 on account of his wifes illness and, thereafter, for 6 weeks from 23.10.1999 to 5.12.1999. It was submitted that there was no provision for granting of parole to enable the petitioner to perform the Chhamahi of his wife and on account of his over-stay, he is not entitled to be considered for parole within a period of one year. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Trikha has submitted that there are no instructions which disentitle the petitioner for being released on parole for a period of 4 weeks on account of the fact that he had overstayed during his previous parole. I am surprised that this submission has also been made by Mr. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Trikha has submitted that there are no instructions which disentitle the petitioner for being released on parole for a period of 4 weeks on account of the fact that he had overstayed during his previous parole. I am surprised that this submission has also been made by Mr. Trikha who, in an identical case, which had been argued by him before me today, had contended that instruction No. 2 contained in Appendix to Commentary on Punjab Jail Manual for the Superintendence and Management of Jails in Punjab, Haryana, Delhi and HP of Legal Publications, Chandigarh Edition 1987 at page 615, to the effect that for a jail offence committed by a prisoner by overstay his parole apart from what punishment may be imposed upon him under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, the prisoner would be disentitled to be considered for parole for a period of one year was not legal. 6. The right to be released on parole has been made conditional to the prisoner maintaining good conduct and in case on being granted this concession, the prisoner misuses the same and does not surrender at the stipulated time, he cannot be said to have maintained the standard of good conduct which would entitle him to the grant of the concession in near future. Actually, such a failure has been treated as a jail offence and it empowers the jail authorities to proceed against the convict under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and taking into consideration the fact that it amounts to a misconduct, the appropriate government has issued the above instructions which cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be violative of any of the provisions of the Act. 7. Learned counsel has also urged that since the respondents had waived the above instructions when his client was allowed parole immediately after this default on two occasions, it would not be open to resort to these instructions now. This argument too has got to be rejected for the mere fact that only because taking into consideration the peculiar circumstance that his wife was seriously ill, the authorities had allowed the petitioner to go on parole would not mean that they are obliged not to enforce the instructions at any time thereafter. The petitioner was required to report back on 7.5.1999 and had overstayed for 13 days. The petitioner was required to report back on 7.5.1999 and had overstayed for 13 days. According to the instructions, his application for parole can only be considered after the expiry of one year and, therefore, the respondents refusal to consider his prayer for parole is legal. 8. For the reasons record above, this petition is without merit and is dismissed with the observation that after May 20, 2000, i.e. after the expiry of one year of the petitioners overstay, he would be entitled to move an application for parole which would be considered and disposed of by the respondents at the earliest in accordance with law within the time stipulated in the instructions contained in letter dated 16.3.1999. Petition dismissed.