IMPORTANT POINT
Parole – Emergency Parole – Rules cannot over ride provisions of Act – Parole can be denied to an accused only on the ground as specified under Act – Rule prescribing minimum one year imprisonment is very harsh.
Parole – Emergency Parole – Petitioner cannot be denied emergency parole on account of the marriage in his family.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

1. Prayer in this petition is for grant of emergency parole for 04 weeks on account of marriage of sister (bua's daughter) of the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was convicted in criminal complaint No.264 dated 02.01.2014 titled as Madan Lal Vs. Rajesh Attri under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'N.I. Act') and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 13.07.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. No appeal has been filed challenging the aforesaid judgments passed by the Courts below and the appellant is undergoing the sentence i.e. 01 year R.I as awarded by the trial Court.

3. The present petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondents, as the emergency parole applied by the petitioner, vide Annexure P-1, has not been granted, though he has to attend the marriage in his family for the purpose of performing certain ceremonies.

4. Reply by way of affidavit of Superintendent of Prison, District Prison, Karnal has been filed in the Court today and the same is taken on record and as per this affidavit, the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay compensation of Rs.13,20,000/- and in default of payment of compensation, to further undergo R.I. for two months. It is further stated that as per Rule 4 (1) & (2) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 2007, the petitioner is not eligible for any kind of parole, as he has been sentenced to less than four years and has not completed one year imprisonment after his conviction on 13.07.2017.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in judicial lockup since 13.07.2017 after dismissal of his appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Mahavir Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2012 (4) RCR (Crl.) 230, where in similar situation when the parole was declined to a convict, as he has not completed one year of imprisonment as per Rule 4 (1) of the Rules, it was held that by invoking Rule 4 (1) of the Rules, a convict cannot be denied emergency parole. The operative part of the judgment is reproduced as under: -

“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.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by invoking Rule 4(1) of the Rules, the petitione