Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
NARESH – PETITIONER
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
CRWP No. 489 of 2015
Decided On : 22-04-2015
Temporary Release - Prisoner's Entitlement to Parole - Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary release) Act, 1988, Section 3 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, emphasizing that a prisoner is entitled to parole under certain circumstances, such as family illness or marriage, and that the one-year imprisonment restriction imposed by the rules cannot supersede the substantive provisions of the Act. The court cited previous judgments to support its interpretation and set aside the impugned order, directing the Competent Authority to reconsider the parole request strictly on merits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a convicted prisoner, sought parole for family reasons, which was declined by the Superintendent of Prison based on the one-year imprisonment restriction imposed by the rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order declining parole based on the one-year imprisonment restriction could not sustain and set it aside.
Issues: The main issue was the eligibility of the petitioner for parole under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary release) Act, 1988, considering the one-year imprisonment restriction imposed by the rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the one-year imprisonment restriction imposed by the rules cannot supersede the substantive provisions of the Act, citing previous judgments to support its interpretation.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the Competent Authority was directed to reconsider the parole request strictly on merits.
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
Reply of the Deputy Superintendent, District Jail, Jhajjar has been filed in Court today and the same is taken on record. Copy has been supplied to the counsel for the petitioner.
2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the main petition is taken up for final disposal today itself.
3. Petitioner stands convicted vide judgment dated 23.09.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Exclusive Court), Jhajjar and has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2100/- in case FIR No.198 dated 24.09.2009, under Sections 307/149/323 IPC, registered at Police Station Sahlawas.
4. Petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 24.03.2015 passed by the Superintendent of Prison, District Prison, Jhajjar in terms of which an application preferred by the wife of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Prabha Devi for grant of parole to her husband has been declined.
5. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length and the pleadings on record have been perused.
6. The application preferred by Smt. Prabha Devi dated 13.03.2015 seeking the concession of parole for her husband (present petitioner) stands appended as Annexure P-1 and a perusal thereof would reveal that the couple has four children out of which two are already studying in school in Class III and Class V respectively and the other two children being younger in age are to be admitted afresh in school. It has further been averred in the application that there is no other male member in the family and for the purpose of admitting the two children for the first time in school as also to ensure continuation of study of the two school going children in the next session, the presence of both the parents is necessary and for such purpose, parole for four weeks' was sought. Such application was supported by a certificate issued by Gian Jyoti Senior Secondary School and placed on record at Annexure P-2 in which it has been stated that it would be compulsory for both the parents i.e. father and mother to be present for purposes of admission.
7. Perusal of the order dated 24.03.2015 passed by the Superintendent of Prison, District Prison, Jhajjar declining the prayer for parole would show that the same has been on the solitary ground that the petitioner had not completed one year of imprisonment after conviction and as such, the claim is barred in terms of Rule 4(1) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (temporary release) Rules, 2007.
8. Even the stand taken in the reply filed today in Court is in the same terms.
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 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 prisoner; or
(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
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
