Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3196 (PNJ)

Hakikat Rai v. State of Haryana

2010-12-01

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2010
JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.:- The present petition has been filed by petitioner Hakikat Rai under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking quashing of impugned order dated 17.9.2010, Annexure P-1 and to release the petitioner on parole for four weeks for getting repaired his house. 2. Written statement filed on behalf of respondent-State is taken on record. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. 4. Admitted facts are that the petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for ten years in case FIR No.260 dated 6.8.1990 registered under Section 17 of NDPS Act at police Station City Kaithal. He has undergone 6 years and 28 days of his sentence including under trial period till 29.11.2010. He has already availed five times six weeks parole and four times four weeks parole after conviction. He has availed last parole form 6.4.2010 to 19.5.2010 for agricultural purpose. The parole case of the petitioner for house repair was initiated by superintendent, District Jail Kaithal vide his letter Nos.2307-08 dated 30.6.2010, as he was entitled for parole and was sent to the District Magistrate, Kaithal. The District Magistrate, Kaithal also recommended his case for releasing him on parole for house repair, as he was entitled as per the Act and the Rules. It is also mentioned that as per revenue record, the petitioner is the owner of the house, which requires repair. However, his parole case was rejected by the competent authority on the plea that he had recently availed parole and that he has also not earned first annual good conduct remission, which is compulsory under Rule 4(1) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1988. 5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already availed parole several times and that he never jumped. Further contends that present request of the petitioner for house repair parole was also recommended by the Superintendent as well as the District Magistrate as he was entitled for parole as per the Act and the Rules. Further contends that now about 6 months have expired since he returned from his earlier parole for agricultural purpose. 6. Further contends that present request of the petitioner for house repair parole was also recommended by the Superintendent as well as the District Magistrate as he was entitled for parole as per the Act and the Rules. Further contends that now about 6 months have expired since he returned from his earlier parole for agricultural purpose. 6. Section 3 of the Act provides that a convict can be released on parole, which reads as under:- “3. Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds. (1) The State Government may, in consultation with the District Magistrate or may other 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 prisoner’s family had died or is seriously ill or the prisoner himself is seriously ill; or (b) the marriage of prisoner himself, his son, daughter, grandson, grand-daughter, brother, sister, sister’s 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 father’s undivided land actually is possession of the petitioner. (d) it is desirable to do o 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 ground 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 sub-section (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; (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 the sentence of a prisoner. (4) The State Government may, by notification, authorize any officer to exercise its powers under this section in respect of all or any other ground specified thereunder.” 7. (3) The period of release under this section shall not count towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner. (4) The State Government may, by notification, authorize any officer to exercise its powers under this section in respect of all or any other ground specified thereunder.” 7. Further Section 6 of the Act provides for the grounds on which the parole can be refused, which reads as under:- “6. Prisoners not entitled to be released in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4. no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act if, on the report of the District Magistrate, the State Government or an officer authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.” 8. Bare perusal of Section 6 of the Act shows that release of petitioner on parole can be refused only on the ground that the same is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of the public order. However, in the present case, request of the petitioner for his release on parole for house repair has not been rejected on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 6 of the Act. Rather his request for releasing him on parole was rejected on the plea that he had availed agriculture parole in the expired since he returned from earlier agriculture parole. Conduct of the petitioner in the jail as per the reply remained good. He has availed parole several times and never jumped. Moreover, there is no ban under the Act and the Rules for availing agricultural parole and house repair parole within the same year as agricultural parole is covered under Section 3(1)(c) of the Act whereas house repair parole is granted under Section 3(1)(d) of the Act. 9. Hence, in view of these facts, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order fated 17.9.2010, Annexure P1 passed by the competent authority refusing release of the petitioner on parole for getting repaired his house is set-aside. 10. 9. Hence, in view of these facts, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order fated 17.9.2010, Annexure P1 passed by the competent authority refusing release of the petitioner on parole for getting repaired his house is set-aside. 10. Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the present petitioner for his release on parole in the light or the observations of this Court made above and as per the Act and the Rules and the Instructions on the point, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. -----------0.N.K.0-----------