Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 545 (PNJ)

Ramesh Singh v. State Of Haryana

2006-02-20

BALDEV SINGH

body2006
Judgment 1. This petition has been filed under Sec.482 Cr. P. C. for directing the respondents to release Ramesh Singh petitioner for six weeks on parole in accordance with Sec.3 of the Haryana Good Conduct prisoners (Temporary) Release Act, 1988 in order to enable him to do the agricultural work. 2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment having been convicted in case FIR No.84 dated 17.3.2003 under Sec.302 IPC of Police Station Bilaspur. He has maintained good conduct in the jail. His case for grant of parole was initiated by the jail Authorities. The same was rejected vide impugned order dated 11.11.2005 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that there is an apprehension of the breach of peace if he comes in the village and also on the ground that there is no land in the name of the petitioner in the village. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that the father of the petitioner does agricultural work and the mother and wife of the petitioner are there to assist him. The impugned order is illegal. Parole could not be denied to the petitioner. The Panchayat had certified that the petitioner is permanent resident of village Bahora Kalan. His parents are old, who are unable to do agricultural work and that there was no apprehension of breach of peace if the petitioner was released on parole. Despite this, the petitioner was denied the grant of parole. It is prayed that the impugned order denying the release of the petitioner on parole be set aside and the petitioner be released on parole for a period of six weeks. 3. Notice of this petition was given to the respondents. The superintendent, District Jail, Gurgaon has filed reply on behalf of the respondents. Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and of the assistant Advocate General, Haryana were heard and the documents place on the file have been perused. 4. The respondents in their reply have stated that there is no agricultural land in the name of the petitioner. The land is in the name of the father of the petitioner. It is not given on lease. It is not necessary to release the petitioner on parole for agricultural work. The parents of the petitioner and his wife can look after the agricultural work. The land is in the name of the father of the petitioner. It is not given on lease. It is not necessary to release the petitioner on parole for agricultural work. The parents of the petitioner and his wife can look after the agricultural work. The parole case of the petitioner was rejected without any application of mind. Parole could not be denied to the petitioner. In the case of Kashmir @ Motu vs. State of Haryana and another, 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 616, it was likewise disputed that the land is not in the name of the petitioner, hence, he was not entitled to release on parole. It was laid down that merely because the family land does not stand in the name of the petitioner, parole could not be denied to him. The respondents were required to consider as to whether or not, it was necessary for the convict to be present in the village to cultivate the land. The land, which was being cultivated by the petitioner was the only source of existence for his aged parents and the rest of the family. The parole was granted to the petitioner for a period of six weeks. 5. In the case of Kulwant Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2004 (1) RCR (Criminal) 365, it was laid down that the parole cannot be refused on the ground that it was likely to result in the breach of peace, and law and order. It was observed in the case of Subash V/s. 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 denial of an opportunity to live. 6. 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 bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Gurgaon, who shall order for the release of the petitioner on accepting the same. 6. 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 bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Gurgaon, who shall order for the release of the petitioner on accepting the same. 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 agricultural work.