SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(P&H) 1578

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
Sumit – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and Others – Respondents
CWP No.10327 of 2018
Decided On : 11-06-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ravinder Bangar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Naveen Sheoran, DAG, Haryana

IMPORTANT POINT
Parole – Overriding Effect-Prisoner is entitled for parole for the reasons given under the Act – Rider put the Rules cannot have an over-riding effect over the provisions of the Act.

Headnote:Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 2007, R.4 – Parole – Overriding Effect – Held; that it is provided under Section 3 of the 1988 Act that a prisoner is entitled for parole for the reasons given under the Act and, therefore, the rider put in Rule 4(1) of the 2007 Rules that a convict cannot be released on parole prior to completion of 01 year from the date of starting his sentence cannot have an over-riding effect over the provisions of the Act. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT :

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

1. Prayer in this petition is for issuance of direction to the respondents to release the petitioner on emergency parole for a period of 04 weeks to enable him to get admission of his 02 children in a school.

2. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment in FIR No.446 dated 21.11.2013 registered under Sections 148, 149, 307, 302, 427, 452, 120-B, 216 IPC and 27/54/59 of the Arms Act. The petitioner filed an appeal i.e. CRA-D No.903-DB of 2017, which has been admitted by this Court and the same is still pending.

3. The wife of the petitioner applied for emergency parole for the petitioner vide representation dated 13.04.2018 (Annexure P1) along with a certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Behrampur, Sohana, District Gurgaon recommending that the petitioner be granted parole for 04 weeks (28 days) and there is no apprehension of any breach of peace in the village, if the petitioner is granted parole.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the daughter of the petitioner namely Nisha is aged about 06 years and son namely Kunal is aged about 07 years and the petitioner has to arrange funds, books, stationary items, school uniforms, etc. for their new admission in the school for the next classes. It is further submitted that since the Gram Panchayat of village Behrampur, Sohana, District Gurgaon has also certified that there is no possibility of any breach of peace in the village if the petitioner is granted 04 weeks parole, the action of the respondents in not releasing the petitioner on parole on the ground that he has not completed 01 year of sentence as per Rule 4(1) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 2007, the action of the respondents is not sustainable in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in “Surajmal vs State of Haryana and others”, 2016(4) RCR (Criminal) 488, wherein this Court has held that the provisions of 2007 Rules cannot have an overriding effect over the provisions of Section 3(1) (a) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners Act, 1988. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment “Naresh vs State of Haryana and others”, 2016(2) RCR (Criminal) 312, wherein also similar view has been taken by this Court that it is provided under Section 3 of the 1988 Act that a prisoner is entitled for parole for the reasons given under the Act and, therefore, the rider put in Rule 4(1) of the 2007 Rules that a convict cannot be released on parole prior to completion of 01 year from the date of starting his sentence cannot have an over-riding effect over the provisions of the Act.

5. Reply on behalf of the Superintendent, District Jail, Gurugram has been filed and as per the reply, the sentence of the petitioner started on 16.08.2017 and he has not completed 01 year of conviction and, therefore, he is not entitled for parole prior to 16.08.2018. It is also stated that a case was also registered against the petitioner under Section 42(a) of the Prisons Act for violating the standing orders of the Director General of Prisons, Haryana.

6. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that the case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio of law laid down in Surajmal's case (supra) and Naresh's case (supra). The operative part of the judgment in Naresh's case (supra) is reproduced as under:-

“9. Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 24.03.2015 passed by the Superintendent of Prison, District Prison, Jhajjar cannot sustain.

10. Section 3 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary release) Act, 1988 reads in the following terms:

"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 tempor






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top