SAHI RAM Vs. STATE OR HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has stated that vide Annexure RI he requested the Jail Authorities concerned under section 3(1)(c) of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 for the grant of agricultural parole of six weeks enabling him to look after his agricultural land during the sowing season, but the Jail Authorities without intimating any reason stated that the Police had rejected parole of the petitioner. His application for parole was rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons.

(2.) IT is further stated in his petition that the Sarpanch and other members of the Panchayat certified that there would be no disturbance in the village on his spending the parole days for cultivating his land. The Panchayat vide Annexure R2 with the petition had endorsed in the Panchayatnama that he had already passed the parole from November 8, 1988 to November 22, 1988 without any complaint from the Jail Authorities. His father died in 1972 and there was no capable member in the family to undertake multiplicities of agricultural work. The Panchayat strongly reccommended the grant of six weeks parole to the petitioner for cultivating the land for the bare existence of food from the agricultural produce for his family.

(3.) THE main ground for not granting parole to the petitioner has been stated in Para 2 of the Reply as under :