Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 265 (PNJ)

Tej Ram v. State Of Haryana

2002-03-05

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. Tej Ram, petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking direction to the respondents to release him on parole for a period of four weeks so as to enable him to carry out necessary repairs to his damaged house situated in village Kheri Khumar, District Jhajjar under Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act). 2. The petitioner sentenced in case bearing FIR No. 115 dated 15.6.1995 registered under Sections 307, 326 324, 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for ten years. While applying for parole to carry out house repairs, it has been stated by the petitioner that he has five brothers and two married sons who have been living separately from him and his aged wife is living in the damaged house. He claimed that during the period in Jail his conduct has been good and there has not been any complaint against him. The Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak made recommendation to the Director General of Prisons, Haryana. The report of the District Magistrate, Jhajjar was obtained who did not recommend the release of the petitioner on parole for house repair primarily for the reason that his sons, who are married, are capable of getting the house repaired. In view of the recommendation made by the District Magistrate, the application of the petitioner was rejected as per communicated dated 31.12.2001 by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, who has been arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the present petition. It is under these circumstances, the present petition has been filed. 3. In pursuance to the notice issued to the respondents, written statement has been filed by Shri D.N. Beniwal, Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak on behalf of the respondents. The report of the District Magistrate, Jhajjar reveals that the petitioner has five brothers who have been living separately. His two sons though married but can carry out the repairs of the house and for that reason the necessity for the release of the petitioner on parole is not made out. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The report of the District Magistrate, Jhajjar reveals that the petitioner has five brothers who have been living separately. His two sons though married but can carry out the repairs of the house and for that reason the necessity for the release of the petitioner on parole is not made out. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Under Section 3(1)(d) of the Act, the State Government, in consultation with the District Magistrate or other officer appointed in this behalf by notification in the official gazetted and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, is empowered to release from the prison temporarily a person for a period specified in sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. 5. In the present case, the petitioner seeks parole by invoking the provisions of Section 3(1)(d) of the Act. The main ground taken in the petition is that his house situated in village Kheri Khumar, District Jhajjar needs extensive repairs and through he has two married sons and five brothers but they are living separately from him and there is nobody else to help his aged wife in this regard. 6. In support of the stand taken he has placed on record the certificate of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Kheri Khumar, wherein it has been stated that there is no such member in the family of Tej Ram, who can get the house repaired. It was also mentioned in this certificate that if the repair was not done in time it is likely to cause harm to human life and property. It was further mentioned in this certificate that there is no danger to the peace of the village if the petitioner is allowed to come to the village for the purpose of carrying out the repair of his house. 7. This Court has taken a consistent view that it is for the petitioner to decide whether the house should be repaired or not. Reference can be made to Criminal Misc. No. 474041-M of 2001, Dinesh v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 29.1.2002 in this regard. 8. In the instant case the sole ground for rejection of the prayer made by the petitioner is that he has two married sons who can carry out the necessary repairs of the house. Reference can be made to Criminal Misc. No. 474041-M of 2001, Dinesh v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 29.1.2002 in this regard. 8. In the instant case the sole ground for rejection of the prayer made by the petitioner is that he has two married sons who can carry out the necessary repairs of the house. This can hardly be construed as justification to decline the prayer of the petitioner-accused in the face of the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat. 9. Taking into account the above noted circumstances, I find no merit in the stand taken by the respondents in denying the prayer made in the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of four weeks on his furnishing requisite bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Jhajjar or the jail authorities, as the case may be, who shall prescribe the terms and conditions on which the parole is to be availed by the petitioner.