Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3372 (PNJ)

Sanjay Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2010-12-17

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2010
Judgment Ram Chand Gupta, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of impugned order dated 20.10.2010, Annexure P2 passed by respondent No. 1 vide which request of petitioner for grant of parole for agricultural operations under Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 , has been rejected. 2. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent-State. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. 4. Admitted facts are that, petitioner is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment in FIR No. 595 dated 01.09.1997, under Sections 302/323/148/149 IPC, Police Station Safidon. He was convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind vide judgment dated 03.10.2000. His appeal against the said judgment was dismissed by this Court. He applied for his release on agricultural parole. The same was duly recommended by Superintendent, District Jail, Kurukshetra as he was entitled as per rules. District Magistrate, Jind has also recommended the same. However, competent authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala rejected the agricultural parole to the petitioner on the ground that he has recently availed parole from 24.06.2010 to 09.07.2010. 5. 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 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 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 petitioner. (d) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause. (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 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; 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 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." 6. 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." 7. 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 conduct of the petitioner in the jail remained good. He is entitled for release on parole as per the rules, the Act and the instructions. The request of the petitioner for his release on agricultural parole has not been declined on any of the grounds mentioned under Section 6 of the Act. Rather his request for his release on parole has been declined solely on the ground that he has recently availed parole. 8. The request of the petitioner for his release on agricultural parole has not been declined on any of the grounds mentioned under Section 6 of the Act. Rather his request for his release on parole has been declined solely on the ground that he has recently availed parole. 8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that now more than five months have expired since he returned from earlier parole. Moreover, there is no bar under the Act and the rules for availing parole for agricultural operations, which is covered under Section 3(1)(c) of the Act and for any other purpose under Section 3(1)(d) of the Act in the same year. In view of the fact that behaviour of the petitioner in the jail remained satisfactory, it cannot be said that impugned order is justified on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 6 of the Act. Hence, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 9. In view of these facts, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.10.2010, Annexure P2 passed by the competent authority refusing release of the petitioner on agricultural parole is set-aside. 10. Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the present petitioner for his release on agricultural parole in the light of the observations of this Court made above, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Disposed of accordingly. Disposed of.