Dinesh Kumar Sharma vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Dinesh Kumar was convicted for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge, Ambala vide his order dated 23.3.1992. At present he is undergoing imprisonment in Central Jai, Ambala. He has filed this petition for his release on parole under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so that he may effect repair of his house. He alleged that his case for temporary release was initiated by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala, but his prayer was rejected on the ground that there was likelihood of breach of peace in case he was released. His house was in a dilapidated condition and required urgent repair. His family consisted of his old parents and a minor brother and none of them was in a position to carry on the necessary repairs.

Along with the application he submitted a certificate issued by the Panchayat of village Kharak Mangoli, District Ambala and a copy of a letter sent by Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Ambala City, rejecting application for grant of leave, submitted by the brother of the petitioner.

In the return filed by the respondents it was alleged that besides his parents and brother, the petitioner had also one sister. This fact was not denied that the petitioner maintained good conduct in jail.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

As per contention of the petitioner his house had developed cracks and required repairs but his father, who was an old man, was not in a position to repair the house. His brother was studying in I.T.I. Ambala and he was unable to get necessary leave from his Principal and devote time to the repair of the house. The petitioner has undergone about two years'' imprisonment and his conduct in jail remained satisfactory. He was never convicted of any jail offence. The certificate issued by the Panchayat shows that the house of the petitioner in fact required repairs and there is none in the family of the petitioner to do the needful. There is nothing to suggest in Annexure R/1 as to how the release of the petitioner on parole was likely to endanger public peace and order. In the absence of any data to that effect the bare averment that public peace will be endangered in case the petitioner is released on parole does not carry any weight. Considering the circumstances of the case and conduct of the petitioner in jail, I allow this petition and direct the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for a period of four weeks on his furnishing necessary bonds to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Ambala.