Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JEET SINGH versus HARYANA STATE

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jeet Singh v. Haryana State - CRM-74415-M-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 12886 (19 December 2006)

Crl. Misc. No. 74415-M of 2006.

****

Jeet Singh vs Haryana State

PRESENT: Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

**

The prayer in this petition is to quash the order dated 16.10.2006 (Annexure P-3) whereby the petitioner's request for temporary release on parole to carry out house repairs has been turned down. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to grant him four weeks parole for the aforesaid purpose.

In response to the notice of motion, a reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 has been filed by the Superintendent, District Jail, Kurukshetra. In the impugned order as also in the written statement, it is averred that the petitioner owns a pucca house which does not require repairs.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Panchayat Report (Annexure P-1) dated 3.8.2006 which is purported to have been signed by the Sarpanch and other members of the Gram Panchayat wherein it is stated that the condition of the petitioner's house in the village has deteriorated and it requires urgent repairs.

Unfortunately, in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, nothing has been mentioned with regard to the genuineness of the Panchayat Report relied upon by the petitioner. Similarly, the respondents have not come forward as to on what basis it has been concluded by them that merely because the petitioner's house is pucca, it does not require any repairs.

Normally, the repairs, if any, to be carried out, need to be left to the discretion of the owner, unless the respondents come out with a positive stand that the same has been taken by the petitioner merely as a pretext to secure his temporary release. It does not appear to be the stand taken by the respondents.

Consequently, this petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 16.10.2006 (Annexure P-3) is quashed and a direction is issued to the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein above and thereafter pass a detailed order within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is supplied.

Disposed of.

January 08, 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.