High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Krishan vs State Of Haryana And Others on 24 October, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan vs State Of Haryana And Others on 24 October, 2008
Criminal Misc. No.M-28045 of 2008                             -1-

                                       ****


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

                          Criminal Misc. No.M-28045 of 2008
                          Date of decision : 24.10.2008

Krishan                                                 .....Petitioner

                          Versus
State of Haryana and others                             ...Respondents

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

Present:     Mr. S.S.Siao, Advocate the petitioner.



S. D. ANAND, J.

Argues that the mother of the petitioner-prisoner is to undergo

an eye operation at P.G.I., Rohtak and the petitioner wants to by her side

at that point of time. The plea is supported by a panchayat certificate and

also the medical certification.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned

Assistant Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of

respondents.

A copy of the petition alongwith enclosures has been handed

over to the learned State counsel.

If a son undergoing incarceration following his conviction in

case wants to by the side of his ailing mother who is undergo an eye

operation, no exception ought to be taken thereto.

The petition shall stand disposed of accordingly with a

direction to the competent authority to dispose of the parole plea of the
Criminal Misc. No.M-28045 of 2008 -2-

****

petitioner within a time bound frame in view of the fact that eye operation of

the mother of the petitioner is fixed for 30.10.2008. The competent

authority would be entitled to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of

the averment made by the petitioner in the first instance. If the factual

averment is found to be correct, the petitioner shall be released on parole

for a period of fifteen days. If it is found that certification is forged affair,

the competent authority may pass an order to the contrary. It will be for

the State counsel to communicate the order to the competent authority.

Copy of the order be given to the learned counsel for the

parties under the signatures of the Court Secretary.

October 24, 2008                                        (S.D. ANAND)
Pka                                                        JUDGE