RAGHUBINDER versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Raghubinder v. State of Haryana & Anr. - CRM-3222-M-2007 [2007] RD-P&H 1176 (1 February 2007)

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

Crl. Misc. No.3222-M of 2007

Date of decision: January 19, 2007.

Raghubinder

...Petitioner(s)

v.

State of Haryana & Anr.

...Respondent(s)

Present: Shri Sachin Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

Notice of motion. Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

The petitioner, who is undergoing 5 years sentence under section 307 IPC is aggrieved at the order dated 13.9.2006 (Annexure P1) passed by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana whereby he has been denied release on parole for agricultural purposes on the ground that no cultivable land is in possession of the prisoner.

It is contended that the petitioner's father Bhal Singh owns agricultural land in village Sadhanwas, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad as is evident from copy of the jamabandi (Annexure P4). It is also contended that the petitioner was in cultivating possession of the said land before his conviction and sentence.

Under section 3(`1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, a prisoner can be released on parole for carrying out agricultural operations if he is in cultivating possession of his own land and/or the undivided agricultural land owned by his father.

The petitioner, therefore, could not have been denied parole merely on the ground that he, due to his conviction and sentence, is not in cultivating possession of the agricultural land. That apart, the District Magistrate, Fatehabad has also recommended the petitioner's release on agricultural parole and there appears to be no valid reason which might have found favour with the competent authority in not agreeing to those recommendations.

Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, this petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated September 13, 2006 (Annexure P-1) is quashed; the Director General of Prisons, Haryana is directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for temporary release on parole for agricultural purposes in the light of the observations made here-in- above. The necessary orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

January 19, 2007. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan Judge

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

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.