Criminal Misc. No.M-32124 of 2008 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-32124 of 2008
Date of decision : 5.12.2008
Jarnail Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Ms. B.P.K. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.
S. D. ANAND, J.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Deputy
Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
The petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Misc. No. M-1721 of
2008 to obtain the invalidation of the order passed by the competent
authority declining the agriculture parole plea raised by the petitioner-
prisoner on the premise that he had over stayed a parole release in the
year 2006. This Court passed the following order in that matter:-
“The agriculture parole plea filed by the petitioner-prisoner was
declined by the competent authority in view of a report
furnished by District Magistrate, Gurdaspur, that the past
conduct of the petitioner-prisoner did not entitle him to release
on parole. The District Magistrate based his report upon the
information furnished by Senior Superintendent of Police,
Criminal Misc. No.M-32124 of 2008 -2-****
Gurdaspur. The impugned order indicates that the parole plea
was being declined as the petitioner-prisoner had over stayed
a parole release in the year 2006 and he had to be arrested in
pursuance of a case which came to be registered against him
on that account.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-prisoner argues that though
she is not in a position to contest the correctness of the above
averment, the further release of the petitioner-prisoner on
parole could have been denied to him only for a period of one
year following the violation.
Learned State counsel states that she is not in a position to
deny the averment for want of instructions in the relevant
behalf.
In the light of the fore-going discussion, the impugned order is
set aside. The competent authority is directed to decide the
parole plea of the petitioner afresh within one month from
today.”
Even thereafter, the competent authority declined the
agriculture parole plea of the petitioner by again placing reliance upon the
fact that he had over shot the previous parole.
The competent authority was completely oblivious of the fact
that this Court had noticed, in the course of order dated 27.8.2008, the fact
that the over stay of parole could have enabled the deferment of parole
plea only for a period of one year following the violation. Infact, the
competent authority was required to compulsively respect that finding by
this Court. But it did not do so.
Criminal Misc. No.M-32124 of 2008 -3-
****
The petition shall stand disposed of accordingly with a
direction to the competent authority to pass an order granting parole to the
petitioner-prisoner for a period of one month. The exercise shall be
concluded within three days from today. 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.
December 05, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No