SUKHDEV SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. - CRM-7611-M-2007 [2007] RD-P&H 1188 (5 February 2007)

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

Crl. Misc. No.7611-M of 2007

Date of decision: February 6, 2007.

Sukhdev Singh

...Petitioner(s)

v.

State of Haryana & Ors.

...Respondent(s)

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. Present: Shri Varinder Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER

Notice of motion.

Shri Tarun Aggarwal, learned Sr. Dy. Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice.

The petitioner, who is undergoing 12 years RI in an NDPS Act, is aggrieved at the order dated January 18, 2007 (Annexure P3) passed by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana denying him parole for house repair on the ground that as per the report of the District Magistrate, Fatehabad, there is an apprehension that the petitioner may abscond.

To dislodge the above noticed apprehension expressed by the authorities, the petitioner has averred that he has a family consisting of wife and minor children as is apparent from the ration card (Annexure P1) and he also owns the agricultural land in the village. The petitioner is stated to be in jail since 11.1.2003 and according to his learned counsel's assertion, he is not involved in any other case of this kind or otherwise.

Though the authorities would be justified in denying parole in a case where there is apprehension of breach of public order, however, such an opinion is required to be formed on the basis of supporting material.

In the case in hand, the impugned order does not indicate the material on the basis of which the authorities could have apprehended that the petitioner might abscond.

That apart, if the authorities are satisfied that the petitioner has a justified claim for parole for house repair, various remedial measures can be taken to ensure that the said concession is not misused by him. The petitioner, in addition to furnishing his own heavy persons bonds, can be directed to furnish at least two sureties consisting of Office Bearers of the Gram Panchayat and/or other respectables of the village. He can also be directed to report to the police station concerned twice a week.

For the reasons aforementioned, it appears that the petitioner's case requires reconsideration.

Consequently, the impugned order dated January 18, 2007 (Annexure P3) is quashed and the Director General (Prisons), Haryana is directed to reconsider and decide the petitioner's case in the light of the observations made here-in-above within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Disposed of.

February 6, 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.