Manbir vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 November, 2008

Criminal Misc. No.M-28337 of 2008                               -1-

                                      ****


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

                         Criminal Misc. No.M-28337 of 2008
                         Date of decision : 03.11.2008

Manbir                                                   .....Petitioner

                         Versus
State of Haryana and others                              ...Respondents

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


Present:    Ms.Sarla Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.


S. D. ANAND, J.

While allowing Criminal Misc. No. 20356-M of 2008 filed by

the petitioner-prisoner to be able to get his child admitted to a school, this

Court had made the following observations:-

“The competent authority is directed to pass an order afresh

in the light of the amended Rules. While passing the order,

the competent shall take cognizance of the fact that there is a

panchayat certification (Annexure P-1) to the effect that the

prisoner has a son (Yash by name) aged 4 years who is to

ber admitted in LKG class (Vivek High School), prisoner’s

parents are old and not able to move, prisoner’s wife is

illiterate and there is none else in the family who can get the

child admitted in the school. The Gram Panchayat further

certified that the release on parole of prisoner would not cause

any breach of peace.”

In the face thereof, the competent authority has again declined
Criminal Misc. No.M-28337 of 2008 -2-

****

the plea by observing that second parole during the same year is not

permissible.

Notice of motion.

Mr. S.S.Mor, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General,

Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

Learned State counsel very fairly concedes that Rules do

permit the release of a prisoner on parole twice a year even for the same

purpose. The only exception, the argument proceeds, is in the case of an

eventuality where a prisoner requires parole for effecting house repair.

That category of request deserves a grant once in three years.

In the light of the fore-going discussion, the petition shall stand

allowed. The impugned order (Annexure P-1) shall stand set aside. The

petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for one week to enable him

to get his child admitted in the school. This Court has opted to pass the

order here itself in view of the unwarranted resistance offered by the

competent authority while considering the request made by the petitioner.

The release of the petitioner shall , of course, be subject to the furnishing

of adequate security to the satisfaction of the authority competent in the

relevant behalf. It will be for the learned 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.

November 03, 2008                                       (S.D. ANAND)
Pka                                                         JUDGE