Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 784 (PNJ)

Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana

2000-07-21

AMAR DUTT

body2000
ORDER Amar Dutt, J. - Sushil Kumar, petitioner, who is undergoing imprisonment for life at Central Jail, Ambala has filed the present petition for grant of six weeks parole for agricultural purposes. 2. According to the petitioner, he has two brothers who are separate in cultivation and as such the petitioner has to look after his own land. He has also appended with the petition a certificate dated 23.9.1999 issued by Gram Panchayat of village Khera in support of this assertion. The petitioner has further submitted that on 14.6.1999, he had moved the Superintendent Central Jail, Ambala for agricultural parole and the District Magistrate, Karnal had after obtaining the report from the Superintendent of police recommended the parole case of the petitioner. However, the Director General of Prisons had again sought a report from the District Magistrate, Karnal, who had thereafter indicated that the petitioner had two brothers and he was unmarried and, therefore, there was no need for grant of agricultural parole to him. This communication was forwarded to the Director General of Prisons who acting on the same has rejected the application of the petitioner on 30.9.1999 which had occasioned the filing of the present petition. 3. In the reply filed on behalf of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala, apart from relying on the report of District Magistrate, Karnal, it is mentioned that the application of the petitioner for grant of parole in order to enable him to repair his house has been granted and he has been released from the custody on 15.5.2000 for four weeks. In view of this, it was submitted that the present application of the petitioner for grant of parole deserves to be rejected. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully considered the respective submissions made by them. 5. The petitioner had applied for grant of parole for agricultural purposes. It is not disputed that on previous occasions parole for this purpose has been granted to the petitioner for agricultural operations. The present application has been rejected on the ground that he is unmarried and has two brothers who are carrying out the agricultural operations on his behalf. 5. The petitioner had applied for grant of parole for agricultural purposes. It is not disputed that on previous occasions parole for this purpose has been granted to the petitioner for agricultural operations. The present application has been rejected on the ground that he is unmarried and has two brothers who are carrying out the agricultural operations on his behalf. Since it is not disputed that the petitioner is owner in possession of holding on which agricultural operations are being carried out, I fail to see how the application of the petitioner can be rejected when every additional hand that may be available would be of some assistance in carrying out the work which may have to be done for the cultivation of the land. In the reply the State has also objected to the release of the petitioner on parole on the ground that he has already availed of four weeks parole for carrying out repairs of his house. That may be so, but under Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for. In view of this, the petitioner cannot be denied the relief to which he would be entitled to under Section 3(1)(c) of the Act. 6. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on parole for three weeks in order to enable him to carry out agricultural operations on the land for sowing, watering and reaping etc. from the date he furnishes requisite bond to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Karnal that he will maintain peace and be of good behaviour during the period of parole and that he will surrender himself immediately after the expiry of parole period. Petition allowed.