Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAIKANWAR versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PRISONS, HAR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jaikanwar v. Director General of Police, Prisons, Har - CRM-49629-M-2006 [2007] RD-P&H 1192 (5 February 2007)

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

Crl. Misc. No.49629-M of 2006

Date of decision: January 17, 2007.

Jaikanwar

...Petitioner(s)

v.

Director General of Police, Prisons, Haryana ...Respondent(s)

Present: Shri Jagmohan Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner.

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

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

The petitioner, who is a life convict under section 302 IPC, is aggrieved at the order dated April 28, 2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Director General of Police, Prisons, Haryana whereby the petitioner has ben declined parole for house repair on the ground that as per the report of the District Magistrate, he has a cemented house which requires no repairs.

Somewhat similar stand has been taken by the respondents in their reply.

Normally, it is to be left to the requirement and family needs of the prisoner as to what kind of repairs/renovations/additions/alternations, etc. are required in his house. Unless the authorities form a definite opinion that the cause of house repair is a mere pretext for temporary release, the same could not be denied if the prisoner fulfills all the eligibility conditions.

In the present case, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat is stated to have certified that the petitioner's house is in deteriorated condition and requires urgent repairs. Unfortunately, the contents of the said report have not been controverted in the written statement.

Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, this petition is allowed to the extent that the order dated April 28, 2006 (Annexure P1) is quashed and the Director General of Police, Prisons, Haryana is directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for parole for house repair in the light of the observations made here-in-above. The necessary orders shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

January 17, 2007. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan 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.