KRISHAN @ BALLU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of agricultural parole to Petitioner for six weeks under Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act').

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully.

(3.) Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in case FIR No. 161, dated 16.7.1994, under Section 302 IPC, registered at Police Station Kharkhoda, by learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat, vide judgment dated 7.4.1997. Criminal Appeal bearing No. 487-DB of 1997 filed by Petitioner against the said judgment was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 16.1.2007 and he was readmitted in jail on 2.3.2008. Petitioner has already undergone seven years eight months and ten days of sentence including under trial period. He has already availed three times six weeks parole, i.e., from 10.7.1998 to 22.8.1998; 22.10.1999 to 11.12.1999; & 22.5.2001 to 4.7.2001 and two times four weeks parole, i.e., from 19.5.1999 to 17.6.1999 and 10.1.2001 to 8.2.2001 and three weeks furlough from 31.7.2000 to 22.8.2000 after conviction. He has also availed three weeks emergency parole from 29.12.2009 to 20.1.2010 on death of his mother and four weeks parole from 14.5.2010 to 12.6.2010. He remained on bail from 5.7.2001 to 25.9.2007. Case of Petitioner for his release on agricultural parole was initiated by Superintendent District Jail, Karnal, vide letter Nos. 15658-59, dated 30.10.2008 and sent to the concerned District Magistrate, Sonepat, and Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak for verification and recommendation, as per the rules. However, District Magistrate, Sonepat, found that there is no agricultural land in the name of the Petitioner. It has also been found that Petitioner is having two sons, one of them is a truck driver and another is studying in class 12th. It was also mentioned that Petitioner may commit any heinous crime on arrival on parole and hence his release on agricultural parole was not recommended.