Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 572 (PNJ)

Karan Singh v. State of Haryana

2000-05-25

AMAR DUTT

body2000
JUDGMENT Amar Dutt, J. - Petitioner-Karan Singh has filed this petition asserting that he had moved the respondents for grant of parole in order to enable him to repair his house, through an application dated 8.12.1999 and the same has not been disposed of by them uptil 1.3.2000. Along with the petition, he has attached a report dated 23.11.1999 of the Panchayat indicating that the condition of the house is very bad and it is likely to fall at any time. 2. In the reply filed by the Superintendent, District Jail, Gurgaon, it is submitted that the District Magistrate, Gurgaon had not recommended the release of the petitioner because according to him the father of the petitioner was available at the house to carry out the repairs and, therefore, the request was turned down on 28.4.2000 by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana. 3. I have heard Mrs. Sarla Chaudhary on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Vijay Dahiya, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. According to Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 the petitioner is entitled to be released on parole in case the appropriate Government feels that the circumstances of his case warrant such a release. The parole has been rejected on the ground that he has a father to carry out the necessary repairs. While there is hardly any material available on the record to doubt the correctness of this report which has been made in the written statement filed by the respondents yet this opinion pre-supposes the existence of a situation when even in case the petitioner is released on parole for any period then too the repairs would be carried out only by his father. There is no such material available on the file from which the Court could infer the mala fides of the petitioners parents which may have justified any opposition to his release from jail. In any case, an additional hand available at the time when the repair is undertaken may always be of some assistance to the family. 4. In this view of the matter, the respondents are directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of two weeks on his furnishing the requisite bail and surely bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Gurgaon, who shall order for the release of the petitioner on accepting the bail and surely bonds. 4. In this view of the matter, the respondents are directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of two weeks on his furnishing the requisite bail and surely bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Gurgaon, who shall order for the release of the petitioner on accepting the bail and surely 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 or condition of bail bond, it will be open to the State to take the petitioner into custody. Petition allowed.