Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURINDER @ CHOCHLU versus STATE OF HARYANA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Surinder @ Chochlu v. State of Haryana - CRM-57356-2006 [2007] RD-P&H 781 (23 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc.No. 57356 of 2006

Date of Decision:- 19.1.2007

Surinder @ Chochlu .....Petitioner(s)

through

Mr.Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate.

vs.

State of Haryana .....Respondent(s)

through

Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Sr.DAG, Haryana.

***

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
***

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner, who is undergoing 8 years' rigorous imprisonment for an offence under Section 306/498-A/34 IPC, is aggrieved at the order dated 20.6.2006 passed by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana (Annexure P-2) denying him parole for house repairs on the ground that the house does not require repairs.

Somewhat similar stand has been taken in the written statement also.

On the other hand, the petitioner relies upon a report purported to have been given by the Gram Panchayat (Annexure P-1) in which it is stated that the house of the petitioner "is not in a good condition and requires urgent repair".

Unfortunately, in the impugned order or in the written statement, the above-stated Gram Panchayat report has not been controverted.

That apart, normally, it should be left to the wisdom of the prisoner as to what kind of repairs/renovations he wants to carry out in his house unless the authorities form a firm conclusion that the "house repair" is a mere pretext to secure the temporary release.

No such opinion has been formed in the present case.

Consequently and for the reasons aforestated, this petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 20.6.2006 (Annexure P-2) is quashed and a direction is issued to the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, to reconsider the petitioner's case for temporary release. The necessary decision shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

January 19, 2007 ( SURYA KANT )

poonam 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.