KULWANT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order should be read in continuation of the detailed order dated 21st August, 2020 passed by this Bench in CRM-730-2020 in CRWP-1890-2020 (Kulwant @ Monu v. State of Haryana).

(2.) The central issue that arises in these petitions concerns the entitlement of prisoners who are "detected of using cell phone or in possession of cell phone/SIM card inside the jail premises" to parole or furlough in terms of Section 2 (aa) (iv) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'Act').

(3.) The controversy has arisen on account of different Benches of coordinate strength of this Court taking conflicting views on the interpretation of the definition of 'hard core prisoner' under Section 2 (aa) (iv) of the Act. Specifically, one view is that the fact that a prisoner is found to have either used or be in possession of a mobile phone/SIM card is enough to disqualify such prisoner for parole or furlough. Whereas, theother view is that unless such prisoner is convicted by a court for such offence which is punishable under Section 42/42A of the Prisons Act, 1894 as applicable to Haryana, the prisoner would not be disentitled to consideration for temporary release on parole or furlough.