High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Didar Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. - CRM-7536-M-2007  RD-P&H 1185 (1 February 2007)
Crl. Misc. No.7536-M of 2007
Date of decision: February 6, 2007.
State of Haryana & Ors.
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.
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 P2) passed by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana denying him parole for agricultural operations on the ground that as per the report of the District Magistrate, Fatehabad, there is an apprehension that the petitioner may abscond.
To counter the above noticed apprehension, it is pointed out that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and was found involved in an isolated case in which he has been finally convicted. It is argued that the petitioner has wife and minor children and admittedly he owns the agricultural land also. According to learned counsel, the petitioner is in custody since 11.1.2003 and has not availed any parole so far.
While it is true that parole/furlough etc. can be denied to a prisoner if the authorities have a genuine apprehension of breach of the public order, however, the formation of such an opinion would be justified if there is some supporting material on record.
If the above noticed facts are considered, the apprehension expressed by the District Magistrate, Fatehabad does not appear to be based upon any objective assessment of the ground situation.
That apart, if the authorities are satisfied that the petitioner has a justified claim for parole for agricultural operations, various remedial measures can be taken to ensure that the said concession is not misused by him. Apart from his own personal bonds, the petitioner can be directed to furnish heavy surety bonds of other respectables, including Office Bearers of the Gram Panchayat, etc. 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 P2) 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.
February , 2007. [ Surya Kant ]
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.