High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Radhy Shyam v. State of Haryana - CRM-10734-M-2006  RD-P&H 2253 (3 April 2006)
Crl. M. No. 10734-M of 2006
DATE OF DECISION: 6.4.2006
State of Haryana
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Mr. K.D.S. Hooda,Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Vikas Chaudhary,AAG Haryana.
In the instant petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code the prayer made is for release of the petitioner on 4 weeks' parole for repair of his house, as envisaged under Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners Temporary Release Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the Act').
It has been alleged in the petition that the petitioner is a life convict and is presently lodged in Central Jail, Hisar. The petitioner is having a house in the village, the condition of which is deplorable and there is no other major male member in the family of the petitioner who can get the house repaired. It has also been alleged that there is no apprehension of breach of peace in village on account of the release of the petitioner on parole for the repair of his house. The petitioner had applied for his release on parole for repair of his house along with endorsement of the Gram Panchayat, who recommends his release on parole, but his that request was turned down by I.G. Prison, Haryana vide Annexure P-2.
Hence this petition.
In the reply filed by respondent, it is admitted that the petitioner is having a pucka house in the village, but it has been asserted that the petitioner is having enmity with his own brother and the release of the petitioner might result into any untoward incident. Thus, it has been asserted that the house repair parole case of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the competent authority.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book.
The decision of the authority to decline parole is an administrative decision and such decisions are open to judicial review. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be resorted to correct the errors which are committed by the authorities. The Act ibid is a piece of beneficial legislation and has been enacted to provide for temporary release on parole of good conduct on certain conditions. Therefore, denial of parole should be exceptional. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner is having a pucka house in the village.
However, the parole has been declined to the petitioner on the ground that there is apprehension of breach of peace in the village on account of his release, as he has enmity with his own brother The apprehension of breach of peace is only an ipsi dixit and does not over ride the recommendation of the Gram Panchayat, Sadalpur, who strongly recommends the release of the petitioner on parole on account of repair of the house. Gram Panchayat not only represents the whole village but is directly concerned with the day to day affairs of the village. The said recommendation (Annexure P-2) has not been taken into consideration by the decision making authority while passing the impugned order. In the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. 2005 (2) RCR (Crl.) 159, order of the Authority declining the prayer of parole while sidetracking the recommendation of the Municipal Committee to grant parole, was set aside.
In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of four weeks on his furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction to the District Magistrate, Hisar who shall order the release of the petitioner on accepting the bail and surety bonds. The petitioner shall surrender before the jail authorities after the expiry of the period of parole. He shall not commit any offence during the period of parole and shall avail the parole only for the purpose of repair of his house.
April 6,2006 (ARVIND KUMAR)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.