Parole is a concession based on good conduct, and authorities have discretion in considering parole requests, especially for 'hardcore prisoners'. The petitioner's conduct during imprisonment, including previous absconding, was relevant in the parole decision.

ORDER :

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.

1. The petitioner assails order dated 10.2.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1 declining the request made by the petitioner for grant of parole for 4 weeks under provisions of Section 3(1)(d) of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner’s (Temporary Release) Act, 1988.

2. The petitioner stands convicted for having committed offence under Section 302, 412, 394, 323 IPC vide judgment dated 22.11.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad in a case arising out of FIR No.331, dated 10.11.2001, Police Station Mujjesar, District Faridabad and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Although, the petitioner assailed the aforesaid judgment dated 22.11.2003 by filing an appeal in this Court i.e. CRA-216-DB-2004 but the same came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 5.10.2010 passed by this Court.

3. The petitioner moved an application for grant of parole for 4 weeks on the ground that his house needed repairs. The said application was forwarded by respondent No.2, Superintendent, District Jail, Faridabad to respondent No.3 for conducting verification. Respondent No.3 got the necessary verification conducted through police and other concerned officers wherein it was reported that house in question belongs to the petitioner and indeed needs to be repaired. However, his release was not recommended as it was reported that there is apprehension of breach of peace in the village, in case he is released on parole. On the basis of the said report submitted by Superintendent of Police, Palwal, the respondent No.3 District Magistrate did not recommend grant of parole, while also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had earlier remained absconding for 9 years when he had been released on parole in the year 2005. Consequently, impugned order dated 10.2.2020 came to be passed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed impugned order dated 10.2.2020 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that there is nothing adverse in the report as regards his conduct and that the State cannot adopt pick and choose policy in the matter of grant of parole and that there have been several other instances wherein persons who had absconded while availing parole had again been released on parole. The particulars of the said cases have been furnished in the petition as follows:

5. The State has filed reply wherein a stand has been taken that a prisoner cannot claim parole as a matter of right and that the same is just a concession extended to him on account of his good conduct. It is further the case of State that the petitioner falls in the category of ‘hardcore prisoner’, having committed an offence under Section 394 IPC and also having overstayed parole and absconding for a good 9 years, and as such had disentitled himself for grant of concession of parole.

6. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

7. The matter pertaining to grant of parole to prisoners is governed by The Haryana Good Conduct prisoners (Temoprary Release) Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The object of the Act reads as under:

“An Act to provide for temporary release of prisoners for good conduct on certain conditions”

8. The name as well as the object of the Act are suggestive of scheme of the Act that good conduct of a prisoner could earn him temporary release from prison. Before proceeding further, it will be beneficial to bear in mind the relevant provisions of the Act for release of prisoners on parol