CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Mohinder Singh vs Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 28 February 1992 · Citation: (1992) 1 AICLR 643 : (1992) 2 RCR(Criminal) 120

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.S.Rathor, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 13-53-M of 1991
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 339 words

S.S. Rathor, J.

1.

This petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment since he was convicted on September 20, 1989. His conduct through out in the jail, remained unblemished with no jail offence to his discredit. Through this petition, a parole for house repair is being made for the first time since he stands lodged in the jail. It has also been averred in the petition that the case of the petitioner for parole for the said purpose, has in due course of time, been recommended by the jail authorities as well.

2.

Notice of this petition to the aforesaid fact supported by an affidavit was issued to the State and reply by the State has been filed by way of affidavit of Sh. Daulat Ram, Chief Welfare Officer of the office of Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh. The aforesaid facts specifically averred in the petition have not been denied. The only reason as signed in the affidavit is that Sudarshan Singh Sarpanch and Ajaib Singh Numberdar during verification of the matter have reported that the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment for having murdered wife of one Kuldip Singh and that he is a dangerous man for not having good reputation. These reasons hardly make out a case, disentitling the petitioner to the concession of parole. Undisputedly he is undergoing life imprisonment on the conviction of a murder charge. No material has been placed on record to show that he is a dangerous man without good reputation. Further, apprehension expressed in the affidavit that the petitioner may cause harm to the villagers is equally without any basis.

3.

In view of the allegation in the petition and the reply filed by the State, the petitioner has succeeded in making out sufficiently a strong case for grant of concession of parole for the purpose of house repair for a period four weeks. Let the petitioner be released on parole for the said purposeand period on his furnishing personal and surety bail bonds to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Ludhiana.

JUDGMENT accordingly