High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Kailash v. State of Haryana & Ors. - CRM-70293-M-2006  RD-P&H 1199 (5 February 2007)
Crl. Misc. No.70293-M of 2006
Date of decision: January 17, 2007.
State of Haryana & Ors.
Present: Shri Surender Deswal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.D. Sharma, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents.
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The petitioner, who is a convict under the NDPS Act, is aggrieved at the order dated 20.10.2006 (Annexure P1) passed by the Director General of Police, Prisons, Haryana, denying him parole for house repair on the ground that the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpura (MP) has not recommended his release on parole for the reason that the prisoner can breach the peace by indulging in fights.
A perusal of the report of the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpura (MP) (Annexure R1/T) reveals that the condition of the petitioner's house is dilapidated and its roof may fall at any time. It is also reported that the wife and children of the petitioner are unable to carry out the repairs. The report, however, further indicates that one Bal Chand s/o Kanhiya Lal Dangi of the village has apprehended breach of peace as he has some land dispute with the convict. At the same time, the report does admit that, "the family of the convict is not of the nature of criminal but there is no reputation in the society due to involvement of the convict in the NDPS Act". It is also admitted in the report that before his conviction, the convict was busy in agriculture work. The District Magistrate, however, has finally concluded that the petitioner may not be released on parole.
As may be noticed from the report, the only adverse material against the petitioner is the apprehension expressed by one Bal Chand, who has admittedly a land dispute with the petitioner. The opposite party would normally have a tendency to see that the prisoner is not temporarily released on parole.
As the fact regarding dilapidated condition of the petitioner's house is undisputed and his antecedents, as of now, do not suggest that he might involve himself in criminal activities, the apprehension of breach of peace at the hands of the petitioner, appears to be totally unfounded.
That apart, the district administration can take several remedial measures to ensure that no untoward incident takes place. The petitioner can be asked to furnish not only his personal bonds but also of some respectables of the village. He can also be asked to report to the nearest police station at least twice a week.
Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, this petition is allowed, the impugned order dated October 20, 2006 is quashed and a direction is issued to the Director General of Police, Prisons, Haryana to reconsider the petitioner's case for his release on house repair parole in the light of the observations made here-in-above. The necessary orders shall be passed within two months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order.
January 17, 2007. [ Surya Kant ]
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.