Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SAJJAN versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sajjan v. State of Haryana & Ors. - CRM-60903-M-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 12876 (19 December 2006)

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

Crl. Misc. No. 60903-M of 2006.

Date of Decision: January 10, 2007.

Sajjan

....Petitioner

through

Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Advocate

Versus

State of Haryana & Ors.

...Respondent

through

Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr.DAG, Haryana.

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)

The petitioner, who is a life convict under Section 302 IPC, is aggrieved at the order dated 7.8.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Director General (Prisons) Haryana whereby his request for temporary release on parole has been turned down on the ground that his conduct in the village has not been good and there is enmity in the village.

Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

In response to the notice of motion, reply has been filed on behalf of respondents NO. 1 to 4. It is revealed from the written statement that the petitioner had actually applied for his release on Furlough in terms of Section 4 read with Section 6 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 but in the light of the report of the Criminal Misc. No.60903-M of 2006. :-2-: Superintendent of Police, Sonepat that the petitioner's conduct in the village was not good and there is enmity in the village, he has not been granted Furlough.

Least to say, the Superintendent of Police as well as District Magistrate, Sonepat have submitted their reports with a casual approach and the competent authority did not even care to find out as to whether the petitioner's request was to release him on parole or on Furlough. In what terms the conduct of the petitioner in the village was not good, has not at all been spelt out. Similarly, there is no reference to his behaviour while in prison which undoubtedly will have some bearing while considering his case for parole or Furlough.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 7.8.2006 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and the Director General (Prisons), Haryana is directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for his release on parole after obtaining a fresh report from the District Administration within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received.

Disposed of.

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.