High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Sheeshpal @ Sheshi v. State of Haryana & Ors. - CRM-56639-M-2006  RD-P&H 111 (9 January 2007)
Crl. Misc. No. 56639-M of 2006.
Date of Decision: January 12, 2007.
Sheeshpal @ Sheshi
Mr. Ashok K.Kumar, Advocate
State of Haryana & Ors.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr.DAG, Haryana.
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 is aggrieved at the order dated 23.8.2006 passed by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana vide which parole for agricultural purposes has been denied to him on the ground that the opposite party in the village may start quarreling with him.
Admittedly, the rights of a prisoner for different kinds of parole are governed by the provisions of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988. Section 3(1)(c) of the Act provides that the prisoner can be released temporarily on parole for agricultural purposes provided that he owns the agricultural land or his father owns such land which is undivided and the prisoner was cultivating the same.
In the impugned order or in the written statement, there is no denial to the fact that the petitioner owns agricultural land. The petitioner, thus, appears to be eligible to seek parole for agricultural purposes.
As far as apprehension expressed by the respondents that his release might lead to some fight with the opposite group, in my view, several remedial measures can be taken. The petitioner can be asked to furnish not only his personal bonds but also of other respectables of the village including the office bearers of the Gram Panchayat. A report to this effect can be obtained from the village Gram Panchayat also. In addition, the petitioner and for that matter any member of the opposite party can also be asked to report to the nearest police station every day so that no disturbance to the peace in the village is caused. In other words, it will be for the respondents to ensure that without creating any law and order problem, the petitioner may be extended the benefit of 1988 Act, provided that he is fully eligible for the same.
Consequently, and for the reasons aforesaid, this petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated 23.8.2006 is quashed and the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for his temporary release on parole for agricultural purposes in the light of the observations made herein above, within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received by him.
January 12, 2007. ( SURYA KANT )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.