MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICATION of the petitioner for parole has been rejected on the ground that the house of the petitioner does not need repairs. The application has been filed by the wife of the petitioner in which it is clearly stated that the house is kachha and it has been damaged by heavy rains. It is further stated that there is no the member who can get the house repaired. The District Magistrate relying on the report of the police has stated that the house is not repairable. On the other hand, the order rejecting the application of the petitioner for parole states that the house does not need repairs. It is also further stated that there is apprehension of breach of peace in the village, if the petitioner is released on parole. I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily without taking into consideration the necessary provisions of the law. In similar circumstances, this Court in the case of Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2000(1) RCR (Crl.) 487 (P&H) vide Crl. Misc. No. 34879-M of 1999 decided on 21.2.2000 held that it was for the petitioner to decide whether the house needs repairs or not. This Court has also held in the case of Dalwinder Singh v. Inspector General of Prisons and another, 1993(1) R.C.R. 694 that the legislature has enacted Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 in order to encourage the prisoners to become good citizens by behaving properly in the Jail as well as on humanitarian grounds so that the dependents may not suffer unnecessarily. In that case also the following reasons were put forward for rejecting the application :-

(2.) THIS Court held that under these circumstances, it appears that the respondents had withheld the concession of parole arbitrarily and on vague grounds. The present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid two judgments. Subsequently, this court has reiterated the law in the case of Chand Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(3) RCR 230, in the aforesaid judgment, in paragraph 4 it has been observed as follows :-

(3.) IN view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the application of the petitioner has been rejected arbitrarily. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of four weeks from the date of his release to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Sirsa, provided he is, otherwise, eligible under the rules and regulations. Petition allowed.