Israil vs State of Haryana and another

H.S. Brar, J.

This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for issuance of a direction to the respondents for temporaly releasing the petitioner on parole for agricultural purposes, under Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short, the Act).

It is sated in the petition that the petitioner was convicted on 28.10.1990 for the offense of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad. The petitioner had applied for parole on 6.9.1991 to respondent No. 2 but the parole case was rejected by the Additional Director General of Prisons, Haryana Chandigarh on 6.4.1992 on the basis of the report of District Magistrate, Faridabad.

In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Shri Inder Singh Yadav, Superintendent, District Jail, Gurgaon has admitted that parole case of the petitioner was initiated and was rejected by the releasing authority i.e. Additional Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh on the basis of the repot submitted by the District Magistrate, Faridabad, as required under Section 6 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, as there was threat to the maintenance of public order.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that only ground for rejection of his case for agricultural parole is that there can be apprehension of breach of peace if the petitioner is released on parole. This ground according to the learned counsel does not hold water in view of a catena of authorities of this Court. A few authorities are mentioned as under :

Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana and another, 1990(2) CC Cases (High Court) 48; and

Ram Kumar v. The Government of Haryana and another, 1990(1) C.C. Cases (High Court) 449.

The learned counsel for the State, has not been able to show me any authority to the contrary.

In these circumstances, I find that the case of the petitioner seems to be reasonable. He is thus, allowed six weeks agricultural parole.

These detenupetitioner shall furnish necessary bonds etc. to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Faridabad, as required under the law.

The petition, is thus, disposed of in the above said terms.