Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1644 (PNJ)

Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana

2011-08-29

ARVIND KUMAR, SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. Satish Kumar Mittal, J.: - The petitioner, who has been convicted by the trial Court in case FIR No.132 dated 12.11.2008 under Sections 498-A/302/304-B IPC registered at P.S. Rajound District Kaithal, and is undergoing life imprisonment in District Jail, Karnal, has filed the instant petition for directing the respondents to release him on parole to enable him to repair his house. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had earlier moved an application for grant of house repair, which was duly forwarded by the Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal to the Commissioner, Rohtak Division Rohtak and the concerned District Magistrate. The said application has been declined vide order dated 18.5.2011 (Annexure P-1). 3. It is further the case of the petitioner that he has come to know from his wife that his house is in very bad condition and the same requires immediate repair keeping in view the ensuing rainy season. It is further the case of the petitioner that there is no other male member in his family who can get the house repaired. But the concerned authority has arbitrarily rejected the prayer of the petitioner for his release on parole merely on the ground that there is apprehension of breach of peace. 4. Pursuant to notice, a reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. In the reply, it has been averred by the respondents that the house of the petitioner is in good condition and the same does not require any repair. It has been further averred that in case the petitioner is released on parole, there will be apprehension of breach of peace. Thus, after agreeing with the report of the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, District Magistrate, Kaithal has not recommended the release of the petitioner on parole. On the basis of the said report submitted by the District Magistrate, Commissioner, Rohtak Division has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for his release on parole for the aforesaid purpose. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the authorities have rejected the parole case of the petitioner without any material or basis. In the impugned order, it has been only stated that if the petitioner is released on parole, there is apprehension of breach of peace. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the authorities have rejected the parole case of the petitioner without any material or basis. In the impugned order, it has been only stated that if the petitioner is released on parole, there is apprehension of breach of peace. He further argued that without assigning any specific reason, the authorities have arbitrarily rejected the parole case of the petitioner. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, we find merit in this petition. In our opinion, the order of rejection was passed by the authorities without any basis or material. Neither in the reply nor in the impugned order, any material has been placed on the record on the basis of which it can be inferred that the prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole deserves rejection. Merely on the ground that in case the petitioner is released on parole, there will be apprehension of breach of peace, the case of the petitioner cannot be thrown out. In our view, Section 3 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 has been enacted as a reformative process. It provides an opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into a useful citizen. Until and unless sufficient material is available with the authorities giving solid reasons for declining the temporary release of a convict on parole, such benefit should not be declined merely on flimsy grounds. 9. Hence, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.5.2011 (Annexure P1) is quashed and the respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for temporary release on parole in light of the observations made in this order and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks’ from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. ----------0BSK0----------