Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2724 (PNJ)

Baldev Raj v. State Of Haryana

2010-09-22

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2010
Judgment Ram Chand Gupta, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 , (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act) for issuance of directions to the respondents to release the petitioner on house repair parole for four weeks by quashing letter No. 4774 dated 16.4.2010, Annexure P1, passed by respondent No. 2, declining parole to petitioner. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been undergoing sentence in District jail, Karnal, in FIR No. 332, dated 17.11.2005, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal. Further contends that he had made an application to respondent No. 3 in the month of February 2010 for release on parole for effecting rapair in the house and the same was duly forwarded by Superintendent jail to respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and, however, District Magistrate, Karnal, respondent No. 4, did not recommend the release of petitioner on parole, on the basis of investigation got conducted through Superintendent of Police, Karnal, on the plea that house of the petitioner does not require any repair. It is further contended that the said report is without any basis as petitioner is the best judge as to whether his house requires repair or not. 4. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned State counsel that under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 2007, (hereinafter to be referred as the `Rules) parole for house repair is granted only once in three years. It is further contended that petitioner has already availed four weeks parole from 10.8.2009 to 8.9.2009 after conviction and that he has undergone only three years, five months and 1 day of the sentence including undertrial period as on 17.9.2010. Further contended that the letter was duly enquired into by the competent authority, i.e., District Magistrate, Karnal, as per the Rules and it came during enquiry that the house of petitioner does not require any repair. Further contended that the letter was duly enquired into by the competent authority, i.e., District Magistrate, Karnal, as per the Rules and it came during enquiry that the house of petitioner does not require any repair. It is further contended that a speaking order has been passed by the competent authority, i.e., Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, Annexure R-2/T, declining parole to petitioner and that petitioner cannot claim to be released on parole as a matter of right, as it is only a concession given to a convict for good conduct and on certain conditions provided under the Act and the Rules. 5. Section 3 of the Act provides for temporary release of a prisoner on certain grounds, which reads as under:- "Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds. - (1) The State Government may, in consultation with the District Magistrate or any other officer appointed in this behalf, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified in sub-section(2) any prisoner if the State Government is satisfied that :- (a) a member of the prisoners family had died or is seriously ill; or the prisoner himself is seriously ill; or (b) the marriage of the prisoner himself, his son, daughter, grandson, grand-daughter, brother, sister, sisters son or daughter is to be celebrated; or (c) the temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operation on his land or his fathers undivided land actually in possession of the prisoner; or (d) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause. (2) The period for which a prisoner may be released shall be determined by the State Government so as not to exceed- (a) where the prisoner is to be released on the grounds specified in clause (a) of sub section (1), three weeks; (b) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (b) or clause (d) of subsection (1), four weeks; and (c) where the prisoner is to be released on the grounds specified in clause (c) of sub-Section (1), six weeks: Provided that the temporary release under Clause (c) can be availed more than once during the year, which shall not, however, cumulatively exceed six weeks. (3) The period of release under this Section shall not count towards the total period of sentence of a prisoner. 4. The State Government may, by notification, authorise any officer to exercise its powers under this section in respect of all or any of the ground specified thereunder." 6. However, Government of Haryana framed Rules, i.e., Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 2007, by virtue of powers conferred by sub-section (1) read with sub-Section (2) of Section 10 and read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 . Relevant Rule 8 of the said Rules reads as under :- "8. Under Section 3(1)(d) "sufficient cause" may be considered from amongst the following reasons, namely :- (i) admission in school/college/professional institutions of the dependents of the convict; (ii) medically scheduled delivery of wife of the convict; (iii) house repairs/new construction of house owned by the convict. Parole for house repair shall be granted only once in three years; (iv) Marriage of prisoners brothers son or daughter to be celebrated in case his brother is not alive" 7. Hence, as per Section 3 of the Act, and as per Rule 8 of the Rules, a prisoner may be released temporarily by an officer appointed in this behalf by the State Government, if it is desirable for a sufficient cause, i.e., for house repair owned by the convict and further it is mentioned that release on parole for house repair shall be granted only once in three years. In the present case, the petitioner has undergone total sentence of about three years and five months as on today. He has already availed parole from 10.8.2009 to 8.9.2009. 8. In the present case matter has been got enquired into by the District Magistrate and it came during enquiry that house of petitioner does not require any repair and the same is in good condition. Moreover, petitioner had returned from parole on 8.9.2009 and the present application was filed just after few months, i.e, in the month of February, 2010. 9. Hence, under the Act and the Rules, as reproduced above, he is not entitled to be released on parole again within such a short period of time. 10. Moreover, petitioner had returned from parole on 8.9.2009 and the present application was filed just after few months, i.e, in the month of February, 2010. 9. Hence, under the Act and the Rules, as reproduced above, he is not entitled to be released on parole again within such a short period of time. 10. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the competent authority in refusing to release the petitioner on house repair parole, warranting interference by this Court. 11. There is no merit in the present petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed.