JANG BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner - Jang Bahadur, who is undergoing imprisonment for 7 years in Central Jail, Ambala had applied before the Superintendent of the Jail for grant of the emergency parole on the ground that his wife Anita Rani had developed a rasoli in her nose which had to be removed by operation. Although the application was moved on 24.1.2000, no decision had been taken in respect thereto and this has necessitated the filing of the present petition for the issuance of a direction that the petitioner be granted three weeks parole as had been sought for by him.

(2.) In the reply filed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala the petition was contested on the ground that as per Sec. 3(i)(a) of the Haryana Good conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) a prisoner can be granted parole in case of death or serious illness of a member of his family. According to the State, no medical certificate had been appended with the application in support of the assertion that the wife of the petitioner was seriously ill. It was further stated that another application filed on 9.3.2000 was accompanied with an O.P.D. slip showing the medical treatment of his wife and the same was rejected on account of the fact that the petitioner had committed a jail offence on 25.1.2000 when he had surrendered four days after the parole period. It was further submitted that a perusal of the medical certificate shows that the wife of the petitioner is not seriously ill and, therefore, there is no merit in the petition which should be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard Shri S.N. Trikha, appearing for the petitioner and Shri Vijay Dahiya, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. In the present case, according to the State, when the petitioner, who was already on parole, had surrendered on 25.1.2000, he had over-stayed by four days of the period for which parole had been granted to him. One day before he surrendered, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of emergency parole to him on the ground that his wife had been advised, to undergo an operation and in support of this assertion he had appended out door ticket dated 13.1.2000 which indicated that the doctor had on 19.1.2000 advised operation. According to the petitioner his wife was to be operated upon for removal of a rasoli from her nose but there is nothing on the record to show as to for how long she would be hospitalised; whether during this period she would require any medical attendance; and it also does not indicate the date for which the operation has been fixed. The petitioner had thereafter surrendered on 25.1.2000 after over-staying four days. According to Sec. 8 of the Act this would constitute an offence which would be punishable under Sec. 9 of the said Act. Since the concession containted in the aforesaid Act is to be extended to prisoners who are of good conduct during the period of their incarceration, this would also dis-entitle the petitioner from consideration for release on parole. It is probably with a view to discourage the commission of such offences the Government issued instructions to the effect that such a prisoner will not be entitled to be considered for parole for a period of one year from the date on which he surrenders after committing the offence.