Criminal Misc. No.M-744 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-744 of 2008
Date of decision : 22.10.2008
Ravinder .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate
General, Haryana for respondent-State.
****
S. D. ANAND, J.
The competent authority declined the parole plea of the
petitioner by relying upon order dated 3.5.2007 passed by a coordinate
Bench of this Court (Surya Kant, J.) in Criminal Misc. No.28880-M of 2006-
Lakhan Lal Vs. State of Haryana and others.
The premise upon which the parole plea of the petitioner-
prisoner was declined is apparently misconceived. In the case above
quoted, Surya Kant, J. had passed that order by noticing that a particular
set of prisoners “have been availing all kinds of paroles liberally”. After
observing that “it appears that the respondent-authorities have failed to
follow strict and uniform parameters while considering the cases of
convicts for their release on parole or furlough, as the case may be”, the
Court held “that no parole or furlough (except emergency parole) shall be
granted to respondents No. 6 to 10 in future without prior permission of this
Court.”
Thereafter, a similar parole plea raised by another prisoner
Criminal Misc. No.M-744 of 2008 -2-
came up before another Coordinate Bench ( Mahesh Grover, J.). After
noticing the circumstances under which the accused in the relevant case
(Criminal Misc. No.28880-M of 2006-Lakhan Lal Vs. State of Haryana and
others) were abusing the concession in connivance with the authorities
and availing themselves of the period of parole/furlough, the Bench
(Mahesh Grover, J.) directed the competent authority to “re-consider the
matter afresh without being influenced by directions dated 3.5.2007”.
Thereafter, a similar matter came up before me. In that case,
the following observations were made by this Court :-
“In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand
allowed. The Competent Authority is directed to decide the
agricultural parole plea of the petitioner-prisoner afresh within
one month from today. In disposing of the parole plea of the
petitioner, the competent authority shall not be fettered by the
observations made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Crl. Misc. No.28880-M of 2006. It will be for the State counsel
to communicate the order to the competent authority.”
In the light thereof, the impugned order is quashed. The
petition shall stand allowed. The Competent Authority is directed to
decide the plea of the petitioner-prisoner, for release on furlough, afresh
within fifteen days from today. In disposing of the parole plea of the
petitioner, the competent authority shall not be fettered by the observations
made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. No.28880-M of
2006. 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 22, 2008 (S.D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE