High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ajit Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 October, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajit Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 October, 2008
Criminal Misc. No.M-17361 of 2008                               -1-

                                       ****


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

                           Criminal Misc. No.M-17361 of 2008
                           Date of decision : 21.10.2008

Ajit Singh                                                .....Petitioner

                           Versus
State of Haryana and others                               ...Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND


Present:       Mr.A.S.Trikha, Advocate for the petitioner.

               Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate
               General, Haryana for respondent-State.

S. D. ANAND, J.

The parole plea of the petitioner-prisoner was declined by the

competent authority on the basis of a report made by the District

Magistrate, Gurgaon, to the effect that the arrival of the petitioner-prisoner

in the village on his release on parole was likely to lead to breach of peace.

The District Magistrate did not, however, indicate what exactly persuaded

him to take that view.

Though the grant of parole is not a right vested in a prisoner,

it also cannot be said that a parole plea can be declined on the basis of a

vague apprehension indicated by the District Magistrate. The principle of

transparency validates the view that the authority competent to consider

the request of a prisoner under incarceration must announce to the

applicant the reasons for disallowance thereof. The impugned order

deserves invalidation as it fails the test of being self-contained and

transparent.

Criminal Misc. No.M-17361 of 2008 -2-

****

The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. The impugned

order is set aside. The competent authority is directed to pass an order

afresh within fifteen days from today in the light of the above observations

made by this Court. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the

order to the competent authority.

Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under

the signatures of the Court Secretary.

October 21, 2008                                     (S.D. ANAND)
Pka                                                     JUDGE