VED PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is undergoing life sentence while being confined in District Jail, Karnal, has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order dated 10.11.2014 (Annexure P -1) passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak whereby his parole case for agricultural operations, had been rejected.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, his parole case was recommended by the Superintendent, District, Jail, Karnal as his conduct in the jail was good and his case did not fall under the category of hardcore prisoners. Further more, he was earlier released on furlough for a period of three weeks in terms of warrant dated 30.10.2013 (Annexure P -3) issued by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and during his said release, he remained peaceful and returned to the jail in time. The petitioner has agricultural land in his name and in order to cultivate the same, he had prayed for his release on parole. However, his prayer was declined on the ground that it was his first parole and being of criminal type, might commit crime. It is pleaded that the reasons specified by the Commissioner while rejecting the parole case of the petitioner were flimsy and unfounded. Prayer has, accordingly, been made for setting aside the impugned order (Annexure P -1) and for releasing him on parole for agricultural operations.

(3.) UPON notice, reply was filed by the Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal on behalf of the respondents wherein it was stated that though the parole case of the petitioner was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Karnal and to the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak but the District Magistrate after verifying the facts, sent a specific report to the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak by not recommending temporary release of the petitioner in view of the report of the Superintendent of Police, Karnal (Annexure R -2) and also for the reasons that the petitioner owns only half acre of agricultural land and he being of criminal character, was likely to commit crime in the event of his release on parole. In terms of the report of the District Magistrate, Karnal and the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak declined the request of the petitioner for his release on parole by passing a speaking order. Accordingly, it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on parole in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988. An additional reply has also been filed by the Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal on behalf of the respondents wherein it is mentioned that the Superintendent of Police, Karnal in his report dated 22.8.2014 sent to the Commissioner had stated about five other cases in which the petitioner was involved. The details of those cases are as follows: