Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HOSIYARE versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hosiyare v. State of Haryana & Ors. - CRM-5664-M-2007 [2007] RD-P&H 877 (25 January 2007)

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

Crl. Misc. No. 5664 -M of 2007.

Date of Decision: January 30, 2007.

Hosiyare

....Petitioner

through

Mr. A.S.Trikha, 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)

Notice of motion.

Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, learned Sr. DAG, Haryana, accepts notice.

The petitioner, who is undergoing RI for seven years u/s 304 (Part I) IPC, is aggrieved at the order dated 20.10.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana whereby he has been denied temporary release on parole for agricultural purposes on the ground that land measuring two and half acres owned by him can be cultivated by his two adult sons.

Under Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners' (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 a prisoner is entitled to be released on parole for agricultural purposes if he was in cultivating possession of the agricultural land either owned by himself or his father immediately prior to his conviction.

There is no mention in the order that the two adult sons of the petitioner are carrying out agricultural operations only and/or they are living jointly. It is quite possible that the petitioner's sons might be doing some other vocation or may be living separately. In such an event, the petitioner appears to have, prima facie, made out a case for the grant of parole to him.

Consequently, this petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated 20.10.2006 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and with a direction to the Director General of Prisons, Haryana to get the facts re- verified and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received.

Disposed of.

January 30, 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.