IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-18653 of 2008
Date of decision : 4.9.2008
Rampal ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr. P.K.Hooda, Advocate Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
S. D. ANAND, J.
A conjunctive perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-1)
and the counter filed by respondent no.3 on behalf of all the respondents
would indicate that agriculture parole plea of the petitioner was declined on
the premise that there is no agricultural holding in his name which he could
cultivate and the agricultural holding measuring 1 kanal 9 Marlas is entered
in the revenue record in the name of his mother only.
It is not the averment that the petitioner has any other grown
up able bodied brother which could cultivate that land which stands in the
name of petitioner’s mother. Even though the extent of agricultural
holding in the name of mother of the petitioner may not be much, the law
does not envision the declining of parole plea on that account only.
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 four weeks subject to, of
course, furnishing of adequate security to the satisfaction of the authority
competent in the relevant behalf.
The State counsel shall communicate this order to the
competent authority.
September 04, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE