Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1285 (PNJ)

Ishwar v. State Of Haryana

2004-11-23

BALDEV SINGH

body2004
Judgment Baldev Singh, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated March 11, 2004 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 1 vide which the prayer of the petitioner for house repair parole was rejected, with a further direction to the respondents to release the petitioner on four weeks parole under Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act). 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for life in District Jail, Rohtak. The Jail Superintendent recommended the case of the petitioner to respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Respondent No. 3 got an enquiry conducted through the police and made a report that the house of the petitioner did not require repairs. He, therefore, did not recommend his parole case. Respondent No. 1, on the basis of the report of respondent No. 3, passed the impugned order (Annexure P-1) rejecting the application of the petitioner for releasing him on parole holding that the District Magistrate, Rohtak, in his report has stated that house of the petitioner was in a good condition and did not require repairs. It is alleged that this order was passed without any application of mind. Mr. Kartar Singh Saini, Municipal Councillor, Ward No. 2 Rohtak, vide Annexure P-2, certified that the house of the petitioner was in a bad shape and did require repairs. He also certified that the old mother of the petitioner is residing in the house and there is no other person who may get the house repaired. He further certified that there is no apprehension of breach of public peace if the petitioner is released on parole. Hence, it is prayed that the order passed by respondent No. 1 be quashed and the petitioner may be ordered to be released on four weeks parole for the repairs of his house under Section 3(1)(d) of the Act. 3. The petition was contested by the respondents. They filed a joint reply. It is pleaded in the reply that the District Magistrate, Rohtak, got an enquiry conducted through the police. It was found that the petitioner had disposed of his house, which had been purchased by his sister. The house is in a good condition and does not require repairs. The petition was contested by the respondents. They filed a joint reply. It is pleaded in the reply that the District Magistrate, Rohtak, got an enquiry conducted through the police. It was found that the petitioner had disposed of his house, which had been purchased by his sister. The house is in a good condition and does not require repairs. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to avail parole for the repair of his house. 4. Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and of the Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, were heard and the documents annexed with the petition were perused. 5. Annexure P-1 is the impugned order dated March 11, 2004. Annexure P-2 is translation of the certificate issued by Mr. Kartar Singh Saini, Municipal Councillor, Ward No. 2, Rohtak. He has certified that the condition of residential house of Ishwar (petitioner) is bad. It requires repairs urgently. There is no responsible person in the house, except the old mother of the petitioner, to get the house repaired. He also stated in his certificate that there is no apprehension of breach of public peace if the petitioner is released on parole. Annexure P-3 is an affidavit of Mrs. Suresh Bala, sister of the petitioner. She has deposed that she has not purchased House No. 130, Ward No. 2, Indra Colony, Rohtak. She has further deposed that her mother Mrs. Shanti Devi resides in the said house. Mrs. Lakshmi is another sister of the petitioner. She has given her affidavit (Annexure P-4) that she has not purchased the house from her mother Mrs. Shanti Devi. 6. The impugned order is on the file, true translation of which is Annexure P-1. It is a cyclo-styled order. Only the columns have been filled in it. It shows that it was passed without proper application of mind. 7. It was laid down in the case of Karan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000(3) RCR(Criminal) 418 that where no mala fide is alleged against the petitioner, parole could not be refused to him on the ground that his father was there, who could get the house repaired. It was observed that an additional hand may always be of some assistance to the family. The petition under Section 3(1)(d) of the Act was allowed. 8. It was observed that an additional hand may always be of some assistance to the family. The petition under Section 3(1)(d) of the Act was allowed. 8. It was observed in the case of Subash v. State of Haryana and another, 2004(2) RCR(Criminal) 491 that : (1) Object of sentencing is not just punishment but also reform. (2) Parole should be the rule and denial of parole should be exception. (3) Denial of parole amounts to punishing the convict twice; once for committing the offence and again by denying him parole. (4) Recommendation of police should not be blindly followed. District Magistrate should examine the case on merits. (5) Denial of parole amounts to detail of an opportunity to live. 9. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of four weeks on his furnishing the requisite bail and surety bounds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Rohtak, 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. He shall not commit any offence during the period of parole and shall avail the parole only for the purpose of repairing his house.