Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 776 (PNJ)

Bijinder @ Binder v. State Of Haryana

2000-07-21

AMAR DUTT

body2000
Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. Petitioner-Bajinder @ Binder has filed the present petition for grant of six weeks agricultural parole under Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the petitioner, he had submitted a certificate of the Gram Panchayat alongwith a copy of the jamabandi to the Superintendent of District Jail, Bhiwani in order to initiate the papers for grant of agricultural parole but this request has not been acceded to by the said officer. 2. In the reply filed by the Superintendent of District Jail, Bhiwani, it was admitted that a request had been made by the petitioner to forward his application for grant of agricultural parole but this had not been done on account of the fact that petitioner who was granted agricultural parole from 16.11.1999 to 15.12.1999 had overstayed without authority and was re-admitted to jail only on 17.12.1999. It was also submitted that as per the report of the Superintendent of District Jail, Bhiwani, the petitioner had been arrested on 16.11.1999 and case F.I.R. No. 206 dated 15.12.1999 under Sections 146, 149, 341, 323 and 325, IPC was registered in Police Station Bawani Khera. In this way, having committed an offence and failed to observe the condition of parole the petitioner was not entitled to be released on parole. It has also been indicated that the respondent had requested the District Magistrate, Bhiwani to forfeit the security of the petitioner for this conduct. 3. Shri Trikha had initially tried to urge that the petitioner was required to surrender only on 16.12.1999 and, therefore, since he was arrested in another case, therefore, he could not be held responsible for non-compliance with the terms of parole and penalised on account thereof. 4. This argument has got to be rejected as the period of four weeks would come to an end on 15.12.1999 and there was no occasion for the petitioner to have surrendered on 16.12.1999. 5. 4. This argument has got to be rejected as the period of four weeks would come to an end on 15.12.1999 and there was no occasion for the petitioner to have surrendered on 16.12.1999. 5. The second argument which has been raised by the petitioners counsel is that a perusal of Section 8 of the Act shows that for committing a jail offence the action could be taken against the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act and the instructions contained in the Jail Manual debarring consideration of a prisoners application for parole in case he does not surrender on due date while availing of parole on a previous occasion for a period of one year would be hit by the principle of double jeopardy and cannot be sustained. 6. This argument has got to be rejected on the ground that admittedly there is no evidence or material on the record that action has been taken against the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act and he has been convicted for overstaying the period of parole. It also has got to be rejected on the ground that the disability envisaged in 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 does not, in my view, constitute a punishment but merely fixes a parameter of good conduct which according to the State would entitle a prisoner for consideration for release on parole. 7. Looked at from any angle, withholding of the petitioners application on the ground that he has overstayed while availing parole on a previous occasion cannot be faulted with and no orders need be passed for granting relief to the petitioner on this score. 8. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and is dismissed.