Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 19 (PNJ)

Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana

2011-01-04

M.JEYAPAUL, SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. Satish Kumar Mittal, J.:- The petitioner, who has been convicted by Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar vide judgment dated 24.02.2009 in case FIR No.611 dated 22.11.2006 under Sections 302/34 IPC registered at P.S. City, Yamunanagar, and is undergoing life imprisonment in District Jail, Yamunanagar, has filed the instant petition for quashing the impugned order dated 7.10.2010 (Annexure P1) passed by respondent No.1, whereby the parole case of the petitioner has been rejected; with a further prayer to grant four weeks parole to the petitioner on the ground of house repairs under Section3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Pursuant to notice, a reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, which is taken on record. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that his house is in dilapidated condition and except the parents of the petitioner, who are old, and minor son of the petitioner, there is nobody to get repair his house, which requires immediate repairs. The wife of the petitioner has already died. The brothers of the petitioner are residing separately having separate ration cards. It is further the case of the petitioner that he is inside the jail since the date of his conviction, i.e., 24.2.2009 and, thus, he fulfills the condition contained in Rule 4(1) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). Further, the conduct of the petitioner inside the jail remained good throughout and he has not committed any jail offence. In view of these facts, the petitioner has prayed that he may be temporarily released on parole to enable him to repair his house. 5. In the reply, it has been averred by the respondents that the respondent authorities have rejected the parole case of the petitioner for house repairs on the ground that the District Magistrate, Karnal had not recommended his parole case. However, District Magistrate in its recommendation has not stated as to on what ground he did not recommend the parole case of the petitioner for house repairs. It has been further averred in the reply that the parents of the petitioner are living in the village, who can get his house repaired. However, District Magistrate in its recommendation has not stated as to on what ground he did not recommend the parole case of the petitioner for house repairs. It has been further averred in the reply that the parents of the petitioner are living in the village, who can get his house repaired. But, in the petition, it has been stated that except the parents of the petitioner, who are old, and the minor son, there is nobody in the village to get repair his house. It is admitted position that the parents of the petitioner are old, therefore, incapable to get the house repaired. Moreover, the wife of the petitioner has already died. 6. In our opinion, the order of rejection has been passed by the authorities without any basis or material. Section 3 of the Act is reproduced below:- “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 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 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 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 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 other ground specified thereunder.” The words “sufficient cause” provided in Section 3(1)(d) of the Act have been defined under Rule 8 of the Rules. For facility of reference, Rule 8(iii) of the Rules is defined as under:- “(iii) house repairs/new construction of house owned by the convict. Parole for house repair shall be granted only once in three years.” Further, Rule 4(1) of the Rules provides that a prisoner shall be entitled to apply for parole only after he has completed one year of his imprisonment after conviction and has earned his first annual good conduct remission under the Act. According to the petitioner, since he has completed more than one year after his conviction and has earned first Annual Good Conduct Remission, he is entitled to be released on parole. 7. The aforesaid provision of the Act is a wing of the reformative process and is expected to provide 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. 8. In the present case, the respondent authorities have arbitrarily rejected the parole case of the petitioner only on the ground that the District Magistrate did not recommend for the release of the petitioner on parole for repairing his house. 8. In the present case, the respondent authorities have arbitrarily rejected the parole case of the petitioner only on the ground that the District Magistrate did not recommend for the release of the petitioner on parole for repairing his house. In our opinion, on such kind of vague report, the respondent authorities were not justified in rejecting the parole case of the petitioner. 9. Hence, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.10.2010 (Annexure P1) is quashed and the respondents are directed to re-consider 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. ---------0.B.S.0------------