Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 456 (PNJ)

Santokh Singh v. State of Haryana

2000-04-27

AMAR DUTT

body2000
ORDER Amar Dutt, J. - Santokh Singh, petitioner, who is undergoing imprisonment for life had on 28.12.1999 applied for agricultural parole. According to the petitioner, his application was required to be processed within 27 days and when this was not done, he had moved this Court for the grant of parole and alongwith the petition he had filed copy of the Jamabandi of the year 1992-93 indicating his agricultural holding. 2. On 7.3.2000, the Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal, had filed reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in which it was stated that the application of the petitioner could not be disposed of on account of the fact that report of the District Magistrate had not been received and as soon as the same was available, the case would be decided. Since, according to the government instructions contained in the letter dated 16.3.1999, the District Magistrate is required to dispose of the application within 21 days and the District Magistrate, Karnal, had not been made a party, this Court had on 5.4.2000 issued him the notice. The Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, is present in person today. 3. Through the reply dated 24.4.2000, the District Magistrate had indicated that the delay in sending the report was attributable to the fact that the requisite verification of the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, had not been received back until 8.3.2000 and the moment the same was received, the report was forwarded to the prison authorities. Acting on this report, the prison authorities have rejected the application because according to the District Magistrate, "wheat crop will be ready for harvesting after one month" and due to this reason, the District Magistrate, Karnal had not recommended the case of the prisoner for release on parole. Taking this to be a rejection on the part of the District Magistrate, the Director General of Prisons had rejected the application. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. A perusal of the record shows that the District Magistrate had merely indicated that the wheat crop would be ready for harvesting after a month. Taking this to be a rejection on the part of the District Magistrate, the Director General of Prisons had rejected the application. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. A perusal of the record shows that the District Magistrate had merely indicated that the wheat crop would be ready for harvesting after a month. In view of the terms in which the District Magistrates recommendation had been made it was not open to the Director General of Prisons to infer that the District Magistrate had not recommended the application and the only inference which can be drawn from the language in which recommendation is made is that the District Magistrate was merely indicating the period when the harvesting would start and the time from which parole should be granted. As the period of one month has already elapsed from the date on which recommendation is made, I feel that the ends of justice require that the application of the petitioner for emergency parole of six weeks in order to enable him to carry out agricultural operations should be allowed. The fact that a prisoner may be required for agricultural operations in the village twice a year and under Section 3 (1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 the period for which agricultural parole can be granted is six weeks, I am of the view that the petition should be allowed and direction issued to the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for three weeks from the date on which he furnishes bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Duty Magistrate, Karnal. Petition allowed.