JUDGMENT :

N.S.Shekhawat, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') with a prayer to quash the order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Karnal, respondent No. 2, whereby, the prayer of the petitioner to grant him regular parole was declined.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide judgment and order dated 23.01.2014, the present petitioner was ordered to be convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, in case FIR No. 297 dated 03.09.2012 registered under Section 302 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Sadar Dadri, District Bhiwani and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had filed an appeal, i.e., CRA D-286-DB-2014 titled as "Randhir Vs. State of Haryana", which was also dismissed by this Court on 29.09.2022 and at present, the petitioner is undergoing his sentence in District Jail, Karnal. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner had always maintained good conduct in the prisons and the jail authorities have allowed the petitioner to undergo the sentence in the open jail. It further requires mention that earlier also, the petitioner had availed parole and furlough 12 times and had surrendered on time and without any complaint from any corner. Consequently, the petitioner moved an application to respondent No. 4 to avail the parole to enable him to meet his family members and to fulfill other obligations of the family. Still further, the mother of the petitioner is an old lady and is incapable of performing house-hold chores whereas his only son aged 21 years is a student. Consequently, the financial condition of the family was very poor and the petitioner wanted to help the family in various agricultural operations. Even, the growing and harvesting of crop is a time bound job and the case of the petitioner was initiated with the recommendations that the petitioner fulfills all the conditions prescribed in the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that in the impugned order (Annexure P-1), it has been wrongly mentioned that the prisoner wanted to go on parole for 70 days to meet his family and the reason for prisoner's parole was not justified. It is further wrongly mentioned that in case the petitioner comes out on parole, peace of the village may be disturbed and the prisoner may commit a heinous crime again. In fact, apparently, a wrong report has been submitted with regard to the character of the present petitioner. The petitioner was never involved in any other criminal activity except the case in which he has already been convicted. During his stay in the prison, he had maintained good conduct and is staying in open jail. Apart from that, he was granted parole/furlough 12 times in the past and he had surrendered on time and without any complaint. Thus, the apprehension expressed by the local police this time was imaginary.

5. Learned counsel further submits that in fact this Court has held in number of judgments that on such a frivolous ground/apprehension expressed by the police, no parole can be rejected by the competent authority. It is the duty of the police to maintain law and order and no reasons have been mentioned for expressing such an apprehension by the local police. In fact, the impugned order has been passed by the competent authority mechanically. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in CRWP 1350 of 2022 titled as "Phool Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others", decided on 25.04.2022, wherein, this Court had observed as under:-

"In spite of the repeated orders having been passed on the said issue by this Court that the declining of parole only on the reason of appr