MAHENDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mahender, petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code') read with Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondents to grant parole to the petitioner under S. 3(1)(b) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') on account of marriage of his nephew (sister's son).

(2.) Mahender, petitioner is undergoing life sentence in pursuance to the judgment dated 18-1-1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat and is presently confined in District Jail, Karnal. The marriage of Shish Pal, nephew of the petitioner has been scheduled to be performed with Chetana daughter of Smt. and Shri Jagpal Malik of Ugra Kheri, District Panipat on 24-11-2002. According to the case of the petitioner, the marriage celebrations will start on 23-11-2002 at Village Kurlan, District Karnal and the presence of the petitioner at the occasion of ceremonies and marriage of his nephew is essential. Even Bhat ceremony has to be performed by him as there is no other member of his family who can do so. It is further stated by him that husband of his sister has since expired and for that reason responsibility has fallen on the petitioner look after the family of his sister. On 2-11-2002, the petitioner applied to the Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal for grant of parole for a period of four weeks but respondent No. 3 had refused to sanction or even recommend the case of the petitioner. It is under these circumstances, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) In pursuance to the notice given to the respondents, written reply has been filed by Mahla Ram, Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal on behalf of the respondents. While opposing the stand of the petitioner it has been stated therein that the petitioner has already availed four weeks parole from 1-3-2002 to 30-3-2002 for house repairs in the current year under S. 3(1)(d) of the Act and for that reason he is not entitled for further parole in the current year under S. 3(1)(b) of the Act. Under clauses (b) and (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, the period for which a prisoner can be released on parole cannot exceed four weeks. At the same time, factual position with regard to the marriage of the nephew of the petitioner scheduled as per his claim has not been disputed.