2017(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2807 (DB) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1465

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA [DIVISION BENCH]

Before

Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S.Saron

Hon’ble Mr, Justice Avneesh Jhingan

CRWP Wo. 932 of 2017 (O & M)

Suresh Kumar

v.

State of Haryana & Ors.

Decided on 16/08/2017

For the Petitioners:         Mr. Arjun Sheoran, Advocate

For the State:                 Mr. Surinder Singh Pannu, DAG, Haryana.

Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1938–ParoleMurder–Non Completion of one year of imprisonmentDeath of father of prisonerThere is no restriction under the Act for temporary release and the Rules that have been framed are not to supersede the substantive provisions of the Act-Parole of three weeks granted to perform last rites-Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules 2007, R.4.

CASE CITED:

  •  Deepak v. State of Haryana & Anr. 2014(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2992 (DB). (Para 15)

JUDGMENT 

 S.S. Saron, J.:- Learned counsel for the State has filed short reply by way of affidavit of Shri

Rattan Singh, Superintendent, District Jail, Gurugrarn along with Annexures R-1 and R-2/T.

The same are taken on record.

  1. Another report of Shri Ramesh 509 MHC, Police Station Farrukh Nagar has also been filed,
    which is endorsed by the SHO, Police Station Farrukh Nagar. The same is also taken on
  2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
  3. The petitioner who is undergoing life imprisonment after conviction in a criminal case has filed
    the present criminal writ petition seeking his temporary release on parole due to death of his
    father on 04.08.2017.
  4. The petitioner has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram on
    03.2017 in case FIR No. 134 dated 18 07.2012 registered at Police Station Manesar,
    District Guruaram for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,149,452. 302, 307,
    433, 323, 332, 353, 437, 114, 201,120-B, 34, 381, 382 and 325 IPC. He has been convicted
    ;or the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307,436,427, 325,452, 201,120-B and 34
    .PC on 18.03.2017.
  5. CRA No.D-502-DB of 2017 titled ‘Sandeep and others v. State of Haryana’ against the said conviction and sentence is pending in this Court. The petitioner according to the Jail Custody Certificate dated 12.05.2017 (Annexure P1) has undergone actual imprisonment of four yea -3, three months and two days til! 12.05.2017.

 

  1. The father of the petitioner unexpectedly died on 04.08.2017. The petitioner approached the jail authorities for his temporary release on parole. He was, however, verbally informed that he would not be granted parole as he was not eligible for the same on account of the less period of imprisonment that he has undergone after his conviction.
  2. In terms of the reply that has been filed, it is submitted that the petitioner could not be reteased on parole as he has not completed one year of his imprisonment after conviction and has not earned his first annual good conduct remission under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (‘Act’ – for short), which is the condition provided for in terms of Rule 4 (1) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 2007 (‘Rules’ -forshort).
  3. Shri Ramesh 509 MKC, Police Station Farrukh Nagar, conducted an inquiry at the house of Vinod Chaudhary of C’nand Nagar Mode, Farrukh Nagar, District Gurugram. According to his report, he contacted Vinod Chaudhary who stated that there was no other person of the name of Vinod and he had no connection with any Suresh Kumar (petitioner) and neither did he (Suresh Kumar) ever come to him.
  4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a resident of village
    Serhada, Police Station Rajund, District Kaithal from where verification has been conducted,
    which is attached as Annexure R2 with reply that has been filed. The petitioner was residing in
    the area of Gurugram as he was earlier employed in Maruti Udyog Limited and his services
    were thereafter terminated.
  5. In response, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner for
    temporary release on parole. It is submitted that the petitioner has not completed one year of
    his imprisonment after conviction and has not earned his first annual good conduct remission
    under the Act, which is the requirement of Rule 4 (1) of the Rules.
  6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter.
  7. As already noticed, the petitioner in the case- has been convicted for the offences under
    Section 302 etc IPC. At present he is undergoing his life imprisonment. According to the
    custody certificate (Annexure P1), the petitioner has completed four years, three months and
    two days of imprisonment as on 12.05.2017. However, after his conviction, he has undergone
    imprisonment from 18.03.2017 to 12.05.2017 for a period of one month and twenty four days.
    Till date he has undergone another period of three months, which >b iess than one year
    imprisonment after conviction. Therefore, the case of the petitioner for temporary release on
    parolo is not being considered in view of Rule 4 (1) of the Rules, which enjoins that a prisoner
    shall be entitled to apply for parole only after he has completed his one year of imprisonment
    after conviction and has earned his first annual good conduct remission under the Act.
  8. It may, however, be noticed that a perusal of the affidavit of Shri Rattan Singh,
    Superintendent, District Jail, Gurugram would show that as per Annexure R-2/T, a report has
    been submitted by Shri Ram Kumar, Administrative Officer, Police Station Rajund, District
    Kaithal. The said report is regarding emergency parole of the petitioner. It is mentioned that
    an enquiry was conducted by AS1 Balwan Singh. The name and address of the petitioner
    Suresh Kumar son of Sewa Singh was found correct. According to the enquiry, petitioner
    Suresh Kumar was undergoing his life imprisonment at District Prison, Bhondsi, Gurugram in
    a murder case. Sewa Singh, father of the convict expired on 04.08.2017 due to illness. It is
    stated that in case the convict i.e. the petitioner was released on parole then the local police
    and villagers would have no objection.
  9. Keeping in view the said report, the case of the petitioner is liable to be considered for his
    temporary release on parole. The provisions of Rule 4 (1) of the Rule would not come in the
    way as this Court in the case of Deepak v. State of Haryana and another, [2014(4) Law
    Herald (P&H) 2992 (DB)]: 2014 (4) RCR (Criminal) 531 has inter alia held that there is no
    restriction under the Act for temporary release and the Rules that have been framed are not
    to supersede the substantive provisions of the Act. The father of the petitioner has admittedly
    died and the petitioner has to perform his last rites.
  10. Therefore, it would be just and expedient to release the petitioner on parole subject to his
    furnishing adequate surety and personal bond to the satisfaction of the learned District
    Magistrate, Kaithal.
  11. Accordingly, the criminal writ petition is allowed and the petitioner on his furnishing personal
    bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned District Magistrate, Kaithal shall be released
    on parole for a period of three weeks.
  12. The learned District Magistrate, Kaithal shall mention the date on expiry of three weeks on
    which the petitioner shall surrender in jail.