Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHYAM BABU versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shyam Babu v. State of Haryana & Ors. - CRM-55847-M-2007 [2007] RD-P&H 1117 (1 February 2007)

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

Crl. Misc. No. 55847-M of 2007.

Date of Decision: February 01, 2007.

Shyam Babu

....Petitioner

through

Mrs. Sarla Chaudhary,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 22.8.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, whereby the parole for agricultural operations has been denied to him on the ground that his family has shifted to Delhi and the house is lying locked and, therefore, the possibility of his absconding can not be ruled out.

On 8.1.2007 it was pointed out that in the past, the petitioner was released on parole on four occasions and he never misused the same. It was also contended that the petitioner owns agricultural land in the village.

Learned State Counsel was accordingly directed to verify the above noted facts.

In compliance thereto, Shri Tarun Aggarwal, learned Sr. DAG, Haryana, has filed a short reply of Risal Singh, Superintendent of District Jail, Gurgaon in which it is admitted that the petitioner was released on parole on four occasions and he always surrendered on due date and never misused the said concession. It is also mentioned that the petitioner owns agricultural land in his village.

It may be true that to earn livelihood or for better prospects, the family members of the petitioner might have shifted to Delhi. However, it does not mean that the petitioner is not required to cultivate his agricultural land, admittedly owned by him.

Consequently, and for the reasons aforementioned, this petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 22.8.2006 is quashed and the Director General of Prisons, Haryana is directed to reconsider the petitioner's case and to release him on agricultural parole, if he is otherwise found eligible for the same, within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received.

Disposed of.

February 01, 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.