ROHIT @ KALIA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present criminal writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 04.06.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Rewari, whereby his request for release on parole has been rejected.

(2.) The reasoning which weighed with the concerned respondent to reject the request was that the petitioner-convict has not completed 5 years of conviction as per the Amended Parole Act, 2015 and did not fulfill the terms and conditions of the Act. Reliance was placed upon the letter of the DGP Jail dated 06.07.2016 that if a convict is found in possession of mobile phone and his case cannot be considered for grant of parole unless and until he fulfills the terms and conditions of the Prisoners Act or he is acquitted by the Court. Resultantly, while agreeing the report of the Superintendent of Jail, the application for furlough of the petitioner was rejected.

(3.) The said order is sought to be justified by filing the reply by way of affidavit of Mr. Anil Kumar, Deputy Superintendent, District Prisoner, Jhajjar, wherein certain other facts and issues have been raised, which were not taken into consideration by the District Magistrate. Therefore, this Court prima facie is of the opinion that the order as such suffers from perversity to the extent that the reasoning aspect as such is missing in the order, as same order is based on the report of the Superintendent of Jail. The said respondent has not applied his free, independent and judicial mind to the application alongwith the relevant statutory provisions. This would be clear from the relevant part of the order, which could be termed as the reasoned part apart from the facts, which have been noted in a paragraph above of the said order. The relevant part of the order reads as under:-