GAGAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case taken up through video conferencing. This criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3(1)(b) of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for setting aside of order dated 9.4.2020 passed by Collector and grant of parole in view of the Supreme Court guidelines/Government notification has been filed by the petitioner Gagan, a convict in case registered vide FIR No.21 dated 10.5.2019 for the offences under Sections 332, 353, 186, 147, 149 and 333 IPC, registered with Police Station Government Railway Police, Kurukshetra. As per the case of the petitioner, he was convicted in the FIR in question for a period of six years by Sessions Judge, Kaithal and against the judgment of his conviction and sentence, he has filed an appeal for hearing and is pending. The petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest in the case and has not been released on bail or parole. As per the guidelines issued by the Apex Court and notification issued by the Government, the prisoners undergoing imprisonment under seven years should be released in light of Corona Pandemic so as to avoid the spread of the disease in the jail. According to the petitioner, he had applied for parole but the same was denied by the Collector for the reason that the petitioner has another case pending against him and he may influence the witnesses. According to the petitioner, the prosecution witnesses have since been examined in that case. Furthermore, in the FIR, seven persons were convicted and out of those five were granted parole and one of them, who was granted parole, namely, Hitesh @ Shankar son of Ashok Kumar was having more cases pending against him and still he was granted parole. According to the petitioner, this Court can relax the condition under Section 4(1) of the Act in the given circumstances of a particular case. In the end, the petitioner prayed that the petition be accepted. On being given notice, the respondents have appeared and filed written reply in the shape of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters Kaithal refuting the averments in the petition. It has been contended that on the application of the petitioner for grant of parole for six weeks, an enquiry was conducted by local police of Police Station City, Kaithal and it was found that the petitioner is facing trial in another case and if he is granted concession of parole, then he can threaten or induce the witnesses and indulge in committing other offences, therefore his name was not recommended for release of parole by Superintendent of Police, Kaithal. Therefore, District Magistrate, Kaithal respondent No.3 vide order dated 9.4.2020 considered and rejected the application for grant of parole so moved by the petitioner. According to the respondents, the petitioner is also involved in FIR No.402 dated 31.12.2015, under Sections 332, 34, 353, 186 IPC, PS City, Kaithal. Para Nos.3 and 4 of affidavit of respondent No.2 Jail Superintendent, Kaithal are quite relevant, which for ready reference are being reproduced as under:

(2.) That in compliance of orders dated 23.03.2020 of the IN RE: CONTAGION of COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS, the High Powered Committee in its minutes of meeting dated 30.03.2020 vide Para D, issued directions which are reproduced as under:-

(3.) That the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated CONTAGION of COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS, clearly made it clear which is reproduced as under:-