BALWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the State has filed affidavit of Mr. Hardeep Singh, PPS, Superintendent, District Jail, Sangrur on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. The same is taken on record.

(2.) The convict-Jatinder Singh @ Goldy filed CRWP No. 189 of 2016 seeking extension of parole due to the illness of his father, i.e. the present petitioner Balwinder Singh. The said petition was disposed of on 16.02.2016 with the direction that convict Jatinder Singh @ Goldy shall surrender in jail on 26.02.2016 at the prescribed time. The petitioner, who is the father of Jatinder Singh @ Goldy, has now filed the present writ petition seeking further extension of parole of Jatinder Singh @ Goldy. On 25.02.2016, it was ordered that the son of the petitioner shall in the meantime surrender in jail on 26.02.2016; besides, he shall be examined by the jail doctor, who shall submit a report on the adjourned date. The Medical Officer, District Jail, Sangrur, has submitted a report wherein it is submitted that prisoner Jatinder Singh @ Goldy was sent to Civil Hospital, Sangrur in ENT OPD. There he was diagnosed as Rhino sino-sitis with DNS for which he was advised functional endoscopy sinus surgery from higher centre/institute. In the circumstances, Jatinder Singh @ Goldy would be required to go to a higher centre/institute for functional endoscopy sinus surgery.

(3.) In the circumstances, son of the petitioner, namely, Jatinder Singh @ Goldy is entitled for his temporary release on parole. The fact that he was earlier released on temporary parole and, thereafter, he is seeking another parole would not come in the way for grant of another parole. This Court in Satyavart v. State of Haryana, 1997 3 RCR(Cri) 672, which was a case under the Haryana Act, held that restriction could not be imposed by executive instructions for seeking second parole. In Kirpal Singh v. State of Haryana, 1997 3 RCR(Cri) 735, also a case under the Haryana Act, this Court held that where the petitioner in the said case had already been granted two weeks' parole and shortly after which he was seeking second parole to attend the marriage of his sister's son, the second parole could not be refused and that there were no restrictions in the number of times to grant parole. The only restriction was that the total period should not exceed four weeks. The provisions of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 ('Act' for short) do not restrict the number of emergency parole that a prisoner may seek for the purposes as envisaged by Section 3 of the Act.