Bijender v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Mr. A.S.Trikha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.M.Anand, Addl.A.G., Haryana. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure read with section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short the ‘Act’) praying for releasing the petitioner on parole for four weeks for repair of his house. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent-State. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. CRWP No.862 of 2010 2 Admitted facts are that, petitioner was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment in case FIR No.356 dated 16.07.1995 under Section 304-B IPC, Police Station city Sonepat. He has undergone two years one month and 20 days of sentence including undertrial period as on the date of filing of the reply on behalf of respondent-State. He has availed one week parole from 30.03.2009 to 07.04.2010. He has not availed any other parole. His case for releasing him on house repair parole was initiated by respondent No.2 i.e. Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal as he was entitled as per the law and the rules and however, competent authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak rejected the release of the petitioner on parole on the ground that his house does not require any repair. Section 3 of the Act provides that a convict can be released on parole which reads as under:- “3. (1) Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds. 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 petitioner. CRWP No.862 of 2010 3 (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.” 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.” 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. CRWP No.862 of 2010 4 However, in the present case, the request of the petitioner for his release on house repair parole has not been rejected on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 6 of the Act. Rather his release was rejected on the plea that the house of the petitioner does not require any repair. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that now almost one year has expired since his parole has been declined by the competent authority and also that recently there were heavy rains and further damage has been caused to his house. It has also been contended that concerned Municipal Councillor has also given certificate, Annexure P2 to the effect that house of the petitioner requires repair, his father is handicap and remains ill and there are minor children in the house and none of them is capable to repair the house. Hence, in view of these facts, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.10.2009, Annexure P1 passed by the competent authority refusing release of the petitioner on house repair parole is set-aside. Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the present petitioner for his release on parole in the light of the observations of this Court made above and as per the Act and the rules and the instructions on the point, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Disposed of accordingly. November 26, 2010. 'om' ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE CRWP No.862 of 2010 5 Note: Whether referred to reporter? Yes / No