JUDGMENT

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.

This order of mine shall dispose of two criminal writ petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of directions to Superintendent Central Jail, Patiala to allow parole to the petitioner. While CRWP 11443 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioner to give power of attorney to his uncle to sell off his land and to be present in person as per requirement by the bank for premature closure of the FDR, previous CRWP 8025 of 2021 was filed for medical emergency in relation to the ill health of his father, petitioner being the single child to take care of his health.

2. For convenience, the facts are taken from CRWP 11443 of 2022 i.e. the recent writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Very briefly the facts of this case are that petitioner went to Birmingham and murdered his wife after finding her sleeping in the bed with another person. After the trial, he was sentenced for murdering his wife without pre-mediation by Crown Court Wolverhampton, UK on 26- 7-2017, for life imprisonment terming to 14 years. Subsequently, he was transferred to India under the Prison Transfer Agreement between India and UK to undergo the balance sentence. Petitioner submitted an application along with the papers for grant of parole for 2 weeks to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, which was not entertained saying that the State had no power and the petitioner should approach this Court to get parole.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that repatriated prisoner Azad Singh should also be given the benefits of parole according to The Punjab Good Conduct Temporary Release Act 1962, as State Governments are the receiving States through Central authorities. He submits that petitioner's father suffers from various ailments and is confined to bed and for the purpose of making arrangements for medical expenses, petitioner wants to give power of attorney to his uncle (Chacha) Bhupinder Singh for the sale of land and premature closure of his FD for which he has to be present in person before the bank and therefore, emergency parole/regular parole be granted to him. He further submits that petitioner has earlier also availed emergency medical parole three times from this Court and always surrendered in time.

5. On the other hand learned counsel for the Union of India/ respondent No 4 contends that in petitioner's case, minimum term has been set at 14 years by the United Kingdom Court which is to expire in 2031. He further contends that United Kingdom authorities have informed through Government of India that life sentence prisoners in England and Wales are usually not eligible for temporary release from prison (parole/ furlough in Indian context) until they move to open prison conditions, which happens approximately 2 years prior to the 'minimum term' expiry date. He also relies upon a judgment of this Court dated 14.12.2021 in Criminal Writ Petition No.664 of 2021 titled as "Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and others" to contend that parole cases are to be governed by the terms and conditions of the Indo-UK Agreement and the rules of State Governments would not apply.

6. Arguments addressed by learned Counsel for respondent number 1 to 3 are in line with the arguments of Union of India / respondent No 4, with only additional submission that since agreement on transfer of sentenced person is entered into at the level of U