LACHHMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks parole for agriculture purpose. The petitioner was arrested in March 1994, and he continued to be in the jail during the trial. He was convicted under Section 302 IPC, and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Under these circumstances, he sought parole.

(2.) PAROLE had been declined wholly on the ground that the petitioner had not completed one year of imprisonment since his conviction. For that purpose, reliance has been placed on the Haryana Government instructions issued on 1.9.1989. The only question would be whether parole can be, thus, declined by issuing instructions.

(3.) A bare perusal of that Section would clearly indicate that there is no scope given to the State to vary the grounds on which temporary release of a prisoner can be granted. Obviously, therefore, the instructions that imposed additional conditions while regulating temporary release of a prisoner, cannot be said to have any sanction from the provisions of the Act. The counsel for the State placed reliance on the decision of this Court given in Criminal Misc. No. 4876-M of 1996 decided on 22.4.1996. In that case, the Single Bench of this Court declined to interfere in the order of rejection of parole by holding that parole was rightly rejected because the petitioner had not completed one year of actual sentence. It may, however, be noted that in that case no argument was advanced as regards the legality or vires of the instructions, referred above. The counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, brought my attention to the case of Varinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 1996(3) Recent Criminal Cases 726, in which a Single Bench of this Court considered the legality and vires of the instructions referred above, and observed such that such standing orders issued by the State cannot over-ride the statutory scope under sections 3 and 4 of the said Act.