High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pardeep Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 5 November, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 5 November, 2009
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH.

                                               Crl.M.No.M-30287 of 2009
                                              Date of Decision: 5.11.2009.
Pardeep Kumar
                                     ..........Petitioner.

           Versus

State of Haryana and others
                                 ..........Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH.

Present:   Mr.H.S.Jaswal,Advocate for the petitioner.
           Mr.Naveen Malik,AAG Haryana assisted by
           Mr.JS Yadav,Advocate.



1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?


JASWANT SINGH,J.

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure has been filed praying for extension of parole for another four

weeks w.e.f. 29.10.2009.

Petitioner, who is lodged in District Jail, Sonepat is undergoing

rigorous imprisonment for life in case FIR No. 62 dated 13.4.2007 under

Section 302/34 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, registered at PS Sadar

Sonepat, following his conviction and sentence by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge (FTC) Sonepat vide judgment and order dated 21.3.2009.

He was granted parole by this Court for appearing in B.A. Examination

w.e.f. 30.9.2009 to 29.10.2009 and he was required to surrender on

29.10.2009.

It is stated that on 25.10.2009, wife of the petitioner fell down
Crl.M.No.M-30287 of 2009 2

from the roof and received serious injuries on her person and accordingly

she was admitted to General Hospital, Sonepat in Surgical Ward vide Bed

Head Ticket dated 25.10.2009 (Annexure P/1). It is alleged that since there

is no one to take care of petitioner’s wife as rest of his family members are

also in custody being convicted in the same case, the petitioner made an

application dated 26.10.2009 to respondent no.2- Superintendent, District

Jail, Sonepat for extension of parole and thereafter he filed the present

petition.

This Court, vide order dated 28.10.2009 issued notice of motion

for 29.10.2009, on which date learned State counsel prayed for an

adjournment for filing reply. Accordingly the case was adjourned to

5.11.2009 for filing reply and the parole period of the petitioner was

ordered to be extended till the adjourned date i.e. today.

Reply on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 has been filed in Court

which is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to the counsel for

the petitioner.

Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.

It has come on record, by way of report of SHO PS Sadar,

Sonepat(Annexure R/1) attached with the written statement, that Nisha wife

of petitioner who was reported to be admitted in General Hospital, Sonepat

has been discharged from the hospital on 30.9.2009. It has further been

given out in the written statement and not disputed by the counsel for the

petitioner that as per Section 3(a) of the Haryana Good Conduct Parole

(Temporary Release) Act,1988, a prisoner can be ordered to be temporarily

released if a member of his family has died or is seriously ill, or the
Crl.M.No.M-30287 of 2009 3

prisoner himself is seriously ill. Therefore, in view of the report that wife of

the petitioner has been discharged, no request for extension of parole can

be entertained.

It has also remained undisputed that the petitioner remained as

an undertrial prisoner from 19.4.2007 to 20.3.2009 and after his conviction

he has not completed one year of imprisonment. It is also not disputed that

as per Rule (1) of Rule 4 of Haryana Government Parole Rules,2007, a

prisoner is entitled to apply for parole only after he has completed one year

of imprisonment after conviction and has earned his first annual good

conduct remission under the Act. Thus, the petitioner otherwise was not

eligible to apply for parole before 30.3.2010 i.e. before earning his first

annual good conduct remission.

For the aforesaid reason, no ground for extending the parole is

made out.

Dismissed.




5.11.2009.                                             (JASWANT SINGH)
joshi                                                       JUDGE