Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 279 (PNJ)

Virender v. State of Haryana

2012-02-17

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2012
JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. - Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in case/FIR No. 124 dated 14.6.1994 under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, P.S. Ganour, District Sonepat. 2. The instant petition has been filed for issuing directions to the respondents to extend the emergency parole granted to the petitioner for six weeks, to enable him to get treatment at PGI, Chandigarh. 3. It has been averred in this petition that the petitioner was released on parole on 15.11.2011 for six weeks and was to surrender on 28.12.2011. However, after his temporary release from jail on 15.11.2011, he was admitted in Emergency Ward at PGI, Chandigarh on 22.12.2011 and thereafter, the petitioner was undergoing treatment in Adult Gastroenterology Ward at PGI, Chandigarh. Since the petitioner was not in physical condition to surrender, the instant petition has been filed to further extend his period of parole for six months. 4. Noticing the contentions, this Court passed following order on 13.1.2012 : "Counsel for the petitioner contends that as per Prison Custody Certificate, Annexure P-1, the convict who was on six weeks parole was to surrender on 28.12.2011. However, he became seriously ill and was admitted to PGI on 25.12.2011 and since then, he is admitted at PGI at Bed No. 23, Ward No. 28, Gastro Anthology, PGI, Chandigarh and thus, was unable to surrender. Notice of motion. At the asking of the Court, Mr. S.S. Goripuria, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and prays for time. List on 18.1.2012." 5. The State of Haryana has filed its reply, wherein it has been submitted as under :- "1. That the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (herein after called the Parole Act) has been enacted to provide temporary release to the prisoners for good conduct on certain conditions. However, the prisoner cannot claim it as a matter of right as this is only a concession given to them for good conduct and on certain conditions provided in the Act. 2. That the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,500/- in default of payment of fine shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year six (06) months in case FIR No. 124 dated 14.06.1994 under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code P.S. Gannaur District Sonepat by the then Ld. Court of Sh. 10,500/- in default of payment of fine shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year six (06) months in case FIR No. 124 dated 14.06.1994 under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code P.S. Gannaur District Sonepat by the then Ld. Court of Sh. V.P. Chaudhary, Ld. Sessions Judge, Sonepat on 11.04.1997. However, the petitioner was released on bail on 24.12.1997 in compliance of the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh order dated 19.12.1997 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 454-DB of 1997 conveyed through the then Ld. Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat vide order dated 24.12.1997. However, the petitioner was re-admitted in prison on 22.04.2006 after dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 454-DB of 1997 by the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh vide order dated 01.02.2006 conveyed through the Ld. Court of Sh. Pardeep Kumar, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat vide order dated 22.04.2006. 3. That in compliance of the order dated 05.03.2009 of the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, the petitioner was got admitted in District Jail, Sonepat on administrative grounds and he has undergone 08 years 06 months and 18 days of his sentence including under-trial period till 15.11.2011. The petitioner has availed 06 months 02 days parole and 01 month 05 days furlough during his conviction period. As per History Ticket of the petitioner, he was released on four weeks parole on 04.12.2006 from District Jail, Sonepat and was directed to surrender on 02.01.2007, but the petitioner surrendered himself on 01.01.2007. Therefore, the petitioner remained absent from parole for one day i.e. 02.01.2007. At the time of hearing by the then Superintendent, District Jail, Sonepat, the petitioner told that he could not surrender in time due to his illness. But he did not produce any medical evidence of his illness. Therefore, the petitioner was awarded punishment by forfeiting five days his earned remission by the then Superintendent, District Jail, Sonepat. 4. That further, it is submitted that the petitioner was released on 15.11.2011 for six (06) weeks agriculture parole in compliance of the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak Temporary Release Warrant Endst. No. Parole/9749-51 dated 08.11.2011 and District Magistrate, Sonepat order No. 4428/R dated 14.11.2011 and was directed to surrender himself at ail gate on 28.12.2011. But the petitioner has failed to surrender on due date i.e. 28.12.2011 after expiry of six (06) weeks parole and still absconding from parole. No. Parole/9749-51 dated 08.11.2011 and District Magistrate, Sonepat order No. 4428/R dated 14.11.2011 and was directed to surrender himself at ail gate on 28.12.2011. But the petitioner has failed to surrender on due date i.e. 28.12.2011 after expiry of six (06) weeks parole and still absconding from parole. In this regard, S.H.O. Policie Station Murthal District Sonepat has been requested to register a case against this convict under section 8/9 Parole Act vide letter No. 522-23 dated 01.01.2012. 5. That farther, in compliance of Advocate General, Haryana Memo No. 2218-19A dated 16.01.2012, it has been confirmed through special messenger whether the petitioner is admitted in PGIMER, Chandigarh or not. In this regard, a report has been received from Dr. Dartar Singh, Professor & Head, Department of Gastroenterology, P.G.I.M.E.R., Chandgiarh vide report no. GE- PGI/2K12/134 dated 23.01.2012 (annexed as Annexure R-1) that the petitioner was suffering from Chronic calcific pancreatitis (alcohol etiology) with multiple pseudocysts with exocrine insufficient and in addition, also had right - sided tuberculous pleural effusion. The relevant para is produced as under : "This is to inform you that patient Virender Singh, 45, M S/o Sh. Surat Singh, R/o Village Rajpur, Distt. Sonepat, CR No. 4777574 was admitted in PGIMER in Adult Gastroenterology Ward from 25/12/2011 to 20/1/2012 the patient was suffering from Chronic calcific pancreatitis (alcohol etiology) with multiple pseudocysts with exocrine insufficient and in addition, also had right - sided tuberculous pleural effusion. He was investigated and treated for these during stay in the hospital and discharged on maintenance treatment." Therefore, as per above report, the petitioner has been discharged from P.G.I.M.E.R., Chandigarh on 20.01.2012, but he has not surrendered at Jail till date i.e. 08.02.2011. 6. That further it is submitted that it has been clarified in Para 6 of the Government of Haryana Notification dated 18th December 2007 (annexed as Annexure R-2) that no parole/furlough shall be extended in any case except provided in the Act and a perusal of above reference of the Act, 1988 shows that there is no provision of any extension of Parole under Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary) Release) Act, 1988. Hence, the present deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits in the interest of justice." 6. Hence, the present deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits in the interest of justice." 6. From the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was discharged from PGI, Chandigarh on 20.1.2012, yet, he has not surrendered at the Jail gate till date. This fact alone is sufficient to reject the prayer of the petitioner as even after his discharge from the PGI on 20.1.2012, he has failed to surrender before the jail authorities. 7. Not only this, earlier also, the petitioner after getting the benefit of parole, had failed to surrender on the stipulated date and resultantly, he was awarded punishment by forfeiting 5 days of his earned remission. It has also come on record that they petitioner is absconding after expiry of the parole period and therefore, the competent authority was requested to register a case against him under Sections 8/9 of the Parole Act. 8. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition. 9. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.