Brahma vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

The petitioner Brahma who is undergoing imprisonment for life in District Jail, Sonepat, has filed this petition for grant of parole for agricultural purposes under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is alleged that his father owned some land and he being an old man was unable to cultivate the same. The members of his family depended on agricultural income and he had a wife to support and look after. Earlier he moved Criminal Misc. No. 4045M of 1993 and it was ordered by the Court that his parole case be decided within a limited period. His case was rejected on 27.9.1993. His conduct in jail was satisfactory and he had enjoyed emergency parole for 14 days peacefully.

In the return filed by the respondents it was admitted that petitioner''s father owned some land but it was denied that there was none to cultivate the same. The petitioner had four brothers out of whom two were outside the jail. Other two who were also undergoing life imprisonment were released on parole for a period of six weeks. His parole case was rejected on the ground of apprehension of breach of peace.

The petitioner filed a counteraffidavit asserting that two brothers who were released on parole had already surrendered before the jail authorities and were now confined in jail. Out of other two brothers, one was an Advocate, practising at Panipat and the second was studying in Panjab University and they were unable to cultivate the land.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

Under Section 3(1) (c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 a prisoner can be released temporarily for a period of six weeks if his release is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operations on his land or his father''s undivided land actually in his possession. The petitioner does not fulfil the condition laid down in this clause because he is neither the owner of any land nor he is in actual possession of his father''s undivided land. Copy of the jamabandi P/1 shows Suraj Mal father of the petitioner owning some land along with other cosharers and he is in cultivating possession of the same. No portion of the land is in possession of any of his sons. The petitioner also did not disclose the true facts and contended that there was none to look after the land except himself as his father was an old man. The counter affidavit was filed only when in the written statement it was alleged that the petitioner had got four brothers out of whom two were outside the jail. It is not explained as to why the two brothers who are outside the jail cannot help their father in cultivation of the land. Moreover, the father never submitted his affidavit affirming that he was an old person and was unable to carry on the agricultural operations. Since no portion of the land was under actual possession of the petitioner, he is not entitled to the grant of temporary release for agricultural purposes. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.