SUKHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -Sukha Singh, who is undergoing 10 years imprisonment, had on or around 31.1.2000 applied to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala for grant of parole under Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 to enable him to perform agricultural operations on 2 acres of land in his possession in village Brass, Police Station Nissing. According to the petitioner, his family consists of his wife who is infirm and two minor children, none of whom would be able to carry out the agricultural operations on the land, and therefore, his release on parole is necessary.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 had on 22.3.2000 rejected the parole case of the petitioner on the ground that at the time of making of the report, wheat crop was standing at the land and no agricultural operation needed be attended to. This rejection had necessitated the filing of the present petition, which is accompanied by certificate issued by the Panchayat of village Brass recommending the case of the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard Shri Ashwani Talwar appearing for the petitioner and Shri Vijay Dahiya, Assistant Advocate General Haryana. In the present case, it is not disputed on behalf of the State that the petitioner has agricultural land in which wheat crop was standing at the time when the enquiry was got conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Karnal. In view of this, especially because the agricultural operations envisaged by Section 3(1)(c) of the Act cannot be restricted merely to sowing of any particular crops and the same would also necessarily include its watering, harvesting and thereafter preparation of the harvested land for further sowing. The view taken by the District Magistrate on 1.3.2000 against the release of the petitioner on parole as no agricultural work was pending cannot be accepted as within about two weeks of the date on which he wrote the letter the harvesting operations were likely to start and, therefore, if parole had been granted to the petitioner from that date, his presence would have been useful in the said operation. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that agricultural operations in some form or the other are always required to be carried out, the recommendation of the District Magistrate rejecting parole case of the petitioner cannot be sustained.