Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARI RAM versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hari Ram v. State of Haryana & Ors. - CRM-46324-M-2006 [2007] RD-P&H 107 (9 January 2007)

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

Crl. Misc. No. 46324-M of 2006.

Date of Decision: January 15, 2007.

Hari Ram

....Petitioner

through

Mr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate

Versus

State of Haryana & Ors.

...Respondents

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, is aggrieved at the order dated 27.4.2006 (Annexure P-1) whereby parole for agricultural purposes has been denied to him on the basis of a report made by the District Magistrate, Ambala to the effect that the petitioner is a person of quarrelsome nature and no body in the village wants him to be released on parole.

Normally, when the entire village community opposes the release of a convict on parole, the authorities would be justified in apprehending the breach of peace as well as law and order. The parole, in a given situation can, thus, be denied on this ground.

However, the aforesaid view has not been formed by the authorities objectively. Merely because a report to this effect has been sent by the SHO of the police station concerned, per-se should not be taken as a conclusive proof with regard to the petitioner's non-acceptability by the villagers.

Consequently, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Director General of Prisons, Haryana as well as the District Magistrate, Ambala that firstly, with regard to the petitioner's conduct and general reputation, a fact finding inquiry be got conducted by associating the Sarpanch and other respectables of the village. If the conclusion of the said fact finding inquiry is the same, as mentioned in the order dated 27.4.2006, the petitioner's request for parole shall be turned down. However, if it is found that there is no apprehension of breach of peace in the village and no untoward incident is likely to take place, the authorities concerned shall consider the petitioner's case on merits and in accordance with law.

Disposed of.

January 15, 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.