Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 595 (PNJ)

Mahavir v. State of Haryana

2012-04-20

PARAMJEET SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: (Oral) - The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the respondents be directed to grant emergency parole to the petitioner to enable him to attend the marriage ceremony of his daughter namely Anju, under Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). It is averred that in case FIR No.64 dated 15.05.1999, under Sections 363/366/376/506 IPC, registered at P.S. Hassanpur, the petitioner was convicted vide order dated 05.05.2001 by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. It is stated that wedding of daughter of the petitioner namely Anju is scheduled to be held on 25.04.2012. In support thereof, the petitioner has annexed a wedding card (Annexure P2) with the writ petition. Notice of this writ petition was issued and the State has filed reply thereto, by way of affidavit of Kulbir Singh, Superintendent, District Jail, Faridabad. It is stated therein that since the petitioner has not completed one year of his imprisonment, he cannot be granted parole. The State has relied upon Rule 4(1) of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) and it reads as under:- “Rule 4(1) - A prisoner shall be entitled to apply for parole only after he has completed one year of his imprisonment after the conviction and has earned his first annual good conduct remission under the\ Act.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by invoking Rule 4(1) of the Rules, the petitioner cannot be denied parole. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered in Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Others Recent Criminal Reports 388. It was held therein that parole can be denied to the accused only on the grounds as specified in Section 6 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. 3. Thus, in view of the settled legal proposition that the Rules cannot override the provisions of the Act, the State was not justified in declining parole to the petitioner on the ground that he has not completed the requisite period of one year of his imprisonment. Even otherwise, the stand taken by the State is very harsh. 3. Thus, in view of the settled legal proposition that the Rules cannot override the provisions of the Act, the State was not justified in declining parole to the petitioner on the ground that he has not completed the requisite period of one year of his imprisonment. Even otherwise, the stand taken by the State is very harsh. The emergency parole is granted to the convict to attend various situations over which he has no control i.e. death or fixation of marriage of a relation. To say that the sister should postpone the marriage of her son or daughter, till the completion of one year of imprisonment by the convict so that she/he is able to attend the marriage, is demanding more than required. Rule 4 (1) of the Rules may be invoked in case of parole which is to be granted for attending agricultural pursuits or house repairs which are recurring periodical feature in the life of human being and over which the convict has control or can plan in advance. Hence, stand of the State that the petitioner has not completed one year of his imprisonment is untenable. 4. Hence, the present petition is disposed of by directing the State to reconsider the request of the petitioner for grant of parole and decide the same by 24.04.2012 by passing a reasoned order without invoking Rule 4(1) of the Rules. 5. A photocopy of this order, duly attested by the Special Secretary of this Court, be furnished to Mr. Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for onward transmission and compliance. ---------0.B.S.0------------