RAMESH KUMAR @ KAKA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dtd. 3/8/2023 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Ambala, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for grant of regular parole for a period of ten weeks had been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been held guilty and convicted for life imprisonment till natural death in case arising out of FIR No. 480 dtd. 9/10/2011, registered under Ss. 364-A, 302, 201 and 34 of IPC at Police Station City Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar. He had filed an appeal against his conviction, which had been dismissed by this Court, vide judgment dtd. 6/9/2019 passed in CRA-D-815-DB-2014. The petitioner had moved an application for grant of regular parole for a period of ten weeks, which was forwarded by the jail authorities to respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Ambala for final decision. However, the same had been rejected by respondent No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner was not having any permanent residence and he could not be supervised after being released on parole. It is further argued that Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act, 2022, which governs parole in Haryana, does not explicitly require a prisoner to have a permanent residence as a condition precedent for grant of parole. The petitioner is in custody for the last about 13 years and he has never availed parole. It is also submitted that the friend of the petitioner, namely Mohammad Furkan, has given an undertaking that he has no objection if the petitioner resides in his house during his parole period. While submitting that the application of the petitioner for grant of regular parole had been dismissed by respondent No. 2 in an arbitrary manner and without assigning any reason as to how the lack of a permanent residence excludes him from being granted the benefit of parole, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on parole for a period of ten weeks.

(3.) Reply has been filed by the respondent-State. It is submitted therein and learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has argued that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 as the petitioner has no permanent residence because he has rented out his house and due to that reason, if the petitioner is granted parole, he cannot be supervised. It is, thus, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.