Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJ KUMAR versus THE U.T. ADMINISTRATION & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Raj Kumar v. The U.T. Administration & Ors. - CRM-58247-M-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 12874 (19 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Misc. No. 58247-M of 2006.

Date of Decision: January 10, 2007.

Raj Kumar

....Petitioner

through

Mr. A.S.Trikha, Advocate

Versus

The U.T. Administration & Ors.

...Respondents

through

Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Addl.Standing Counsel

for U.T., Chandigarh.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL)

Reply filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record.

The petitioner, who is a life convict under Sections 302/201/120-B IPC and is undergoing sentence since the year 2001, sought his temporary release on parole to get his house repaired and to meet his family.

Along with the application, he also appended a certificate issued by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Raipur Khurd, Chandigarh wherein it is stated that the petitioner has aged parents and their house is in bad shape which requires immediate repairs.

The petitioner's request has, however, been turned down on the premise that he may commit some heinous crime while on parole.

On a specific query by the Court, it is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions from Hardip Singh, an official, that no other offence has ever been reported to have been committed by the petitioner.

In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a specific stand that while in custody from last more than five years, the petitioner has always maintained good behaviour in jail and no parole has ever been availed by him.

If that is so, the apprehension expressed by the respondents that the petitioner, if released on parole, will commit some heinous crime, has no factual basis and is based upon mere surmises and conjectures.

Consequently, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for the grant of temporary release on parole for house repairs in the light of the observations made herein above. Necessary orders shall be passed within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received.

January 10, 2007. ( SURYA KANT )

dinesh JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.