Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 96 (PNJ)

Ram Krishan Kathpalia v. State of Haryana

2001-01-17

AMAR DUTT

body2001
JUDGMENT Amar Dutt, J. - Petitioner-Ram Kishan has filed this petition asserting that the application moved by him to the respondents for grant of parole in order to enable him to carry out necessary repairs of his house has been rejected by them vide Annexure P-1 dated 31.10.2000 on the basis of the report submitted by the District Magistrate, Jhajjar that the house of the petitioner is in good condition and his wife and two sons are at home, who are quite capable of doing the household work. 2. Petitioner is seeking grant of parole under Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 on the ground that the house requires repairs and in support of this averment has annexed with the petition the report submitted by the Municipal Councillor. Bahadurgarh as Annexure P-2 dated 20.9.2000 as well certificate issued by Shri Nafe Singh, M.L.A., Bahadurgarh as Annexure P-3 dated 7.7.2000. He has further averred that his sons live separately and there is no one in the house to carry out the necessary repairs. 3. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Hisar, has reiterated the stand taken by the District Magistrate, Jhajjar for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced, and scrutinised the stand taken by the authorities in writing before this Court. The parole case of the petitioner is being rejected primarily on the ground that the condition of the house of the petitioner is such that it is not repairable. The question as to whether the accommodation available with any prisoner can be repaired or not will have to be decided by the prisoner himself after taking into consideraton the financial resources that are available with him and his own standard of living. In view of this, although by government standards the accommodation available with the family of the prisoner may be beyond repairs but that would not entitle the officials of the State to assert that the prisoner is not entitled to make any effort to improve the condition thereof in such a way so as to provide some semblance of a shelter to the members of his family. Unless and until the State takes upon itself the task of providing alternative accommodation which according to its standards would be fit for habitation by the dependents of a prisoner, it would neither be proper nor just for it to prevent any attempt being made by the prisoner to provide some protection to his kith and kin from the vagaries of weather. 5. The respondents have not placed any material in support of the plea that the sons of the petitioner are there to carry out necessary repairs of the house, whereas the petitioner has annexed with the petition the certificate dated 7.7.2000 issued by Shri safe Singh, M.L.A., Bahadurgarh to the effect that both his sons are settled at Delhi and are having their own flats and family to look after. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the order passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of parole cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of three weeks on his furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Jhajjar, who shall order for the release of the petitioner on accepting the bail and surety 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 a 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.