Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1006 (PNJ)

Mohinder v. State Of Haryana

2002-09-30

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. Mohinder, petitioner has challenged in this petition order bearing No. 20289 O.1./O.6 dated 25.6.2002 of the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh communicated to the Superintendent, District Jail, Gurgaon whereby his prayer for agricultural parole had been rejected. 2. Mohinder, petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment in pursuant to the judgment dated 25.3.2002 in case bearing FIR No. 170 of 1996 registered under Sections 323 and 302 I.P.C. with Police Station, Tavru. He is presently confined in District Jail, Gurgaon. The petitioner had submitted application to the Jail authorities for being released on agricultural parole on the ground that his parents being old, the land of his father need cultivation and there being no other source of income of livelihood of his family and parents, he had to look after the cultivation of the land. It was also stated by him that his two brothers were married and living separately. They were gainfully employed as a teacher and in a company respectively and did not do agricultural work. The third brother was minor and was studying in school. Thus, it was prayed that circumstances warranted that he be released on agricultural parole to cultivate the land of his father. In support of the stand taken report of the Panchayat (Annexure P-2) had also been placed on record besides the copies of Jamabandi and Khasra Girdwari for the years 1996-97 and 2001, the extracts of which are placed on record as Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively, wherein land measuring 18 kanals 6 marlas have been shown under the self-cultivation of Raghbir son of Amar Singh, who is father of the present petitioner. The land is located in village Khori Khurd, Tehsil Nuh, District Gurgaon. 3. In pursuance to the notice given to the respondents, written reply has been filed by Rai Singh Mandiwal, Superintendent, District Jail, Gurgaon on behalf of the respondent. While opposing the stand taken by the petitioner, it has been stated therein that report of the District Magistrate, Gurgaon was sought on the prayer made by the petitioner. The District Magistrate, Gurgaon, in his report dated 7.6.2002 (Annexure R-1), found that the petitioner did not own agricultural land in the village and rather his father owned 2 Acres 4 Kanals agricultural land which was cultivated by the brothers of the petitioner and for that reason release of the petitioner on agricultural parole was not required. The District Magistrate, Gurgaon, in his report dated 7.6.2002 (Annexure R-1), found that the petitioner did not own agricultural land in the village and rather his father owned 2 Acres 4 Kanals agricultural land which was cultivated by the brothers of the petitioner and for that reason release of the petitioner on agricultural parole was not required. Additionally, it was stated by him that release of the petitioner on parole would lead to apprehension of breach of peace in the village. Taking into consideration the above report, the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh rejected the prayer of the petitioner which was fully justified under the circumstances of the case. 4. I heard counsel for the petitioner and State counsel at length. 5. The main ground on which quashing of the order Annexure P-1 is sought on behalf of the petitioner is that merely because he does not own agricultural land in his own name is no ground to deny the claim of the petitioner for agricultural parole because admittedly, the petitioner is duty bound to help his father who being of old age is not able to cultivate land himself and as such his presence is essential to render necessary assistance in cultivating the same. 6. Opposing the submission made, it was contended by the State counsel that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) and for that reason claim of the petitioner is not supported under the law. This question has come up for consideration in Criminal Misc. No. 11437-M of 2002, Bijender v. State of Haryana and another, 2002(4) RCR(Crl.) 719 (P&H). After taking notice of the provisions of Section 3(1)(c) of the Act it was observed that reading of the provisions contained in Section 3(1)(c) of the Act would show that two conditions are required to be fulfilled by the prisoner who wants his temporary release for the period specified in sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. Firstly, that the release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying out any other agricultural operation on his land. Secondly, that he has been in possession of his fathers individual land. Firstly, that the release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying out any other agricultural operation on his land. Secondly, that he has been in possession of his fathers individual land. Admittedly, in the present case, the above requirements are not fulfilled because the petitioner does not own land and was not in possession of his fathers undivided land when he had filed the present petition. The statutory requirements are not fulfilled by the petitioner in this case. It was also observed in the above mentioned case that ignoring the statutory requirement would tantamount to ignore the mandate of law. Under the circumstances of the case, the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit of agricultural parole as claimed by him. 7. With regard to the other stand taken that release of the petitioner would lead to apprehension of breach of peace, no such material has been placed on record to support the conclusion drawn in this regard and for that reason the same cannot be accepted. For the reasons stated in the earlier part of this order, I find no merit in the petition and consequently, the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.