Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 952 (PNJ)

Ram Kishan v. State Of Haryana

2002-09-19

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. Ram Kishan, petitioner, who is undergoing life imprisonment in case bearing FIR No. 97, dated 12.4.1997 registered under Sections 302 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. with Police Station Nangal Chaudhary, District Mohindergarh and is presently confined in District Jail, Bhivani seeks quashing of order No. 35321 G.I./G.4 dated 24.12.2001 (Annexure -P-1) passed by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh, communicated to the petitioner through the Superintendent, District Jail, Bhiwani, whereby prayer made by the petitioner for his release on agricultural parole was declined. 2. The case setup by the petitioner is that his prayer for agricultural parole had been rejected because the District Magistrate, Mohindergarh at Narnaul had stated that the reasons stated by him for parole had not been verified. It is further stated that no detailed reasons had been stated in the report of the District Magistrate, Mohindergarh to support the conclusion in this regard and for that reason the order passed by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh is not sustainable. 3. In pursuance to the notice given to the respondents, written reply has been filed by Z.S. Kundu, Superintendent, District Jail, Bhiwani on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been stated that taking into consideration report dated 1.12.2001 of the District Magistrate, Mohindergarh at Narnaul, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure-R.II, the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, had rejected the prayer of the petitioner vide order dated 24.12.2001, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure-R.I. and thus justified that action of the respondents in this regard. 4. I heard counsel for the petitioner and State counsel at length. 5. A cursory examination of the recommendations of the District Magistrate, Mohindergarh at Narnaul would show that no reasons whatsoever had been famished as to why release of the petitioner for agricultural parole was not recommended by him. Same infirmity is reflected in the order of the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, who has merely acted on the report of the District Magistrate as is evident from the copy of the order Annexure R.1 placed on record. Under the circumstances of the case the impugned order shows non-application of mind by the authorities while deciding the case of the petitioner and consequently the same is set aside. 6. Under the circumstances of the case the impugned order shows non-application of mind by the authorities while deciding the case of the petitioner and consequently the same is set aside. 6. Thus, while accepting the petition of the petitioner, the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh, respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the case of petitioner afresh after obtaining a fresh report of the District Magistrate, Mohindergarh at Narnaul within a period of two weeks from the date, of receipt of this order.