SHEHJAD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3(1) (d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") for issuing writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing order dated 04.08.2016 passed by Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak vide which he had rejected the case of petitioner for grant of parole to repair the house being illegal, unauthorized in the eyes of law or issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents/State to grant parole or furlough to the petitioner for a period of four weeks for house repair and for restoring social ties etc. has been filed by petitioner-Shehjad who was convicted in case FIR No.361 dated 01.09.2002 for offence under Section 15 NDPS Act, 1985, Police Station Chandni Bagh, District Panipat and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.5 lacs and in FIR No.609 dated 02.11.2010 under Section 8/9 of Parole Act, 1988, Police Station Sadar Karnal and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-.

(2.) According to the petitioner he had filed a criminal appeal CRA-D-873-DB-2005 against such judgment of his conviction and order of sentence but the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 09.03.2009, for that the petitioner is undergoing life sentence in District Jail, Karnal. According to the petitioner he is maintaining good conduct in jail while undergoing sentence and he has not given any chance of complaint. He had submitted an application for parole to respondent-Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal for house repair and for restoring social ties, who had forwarded such application to Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak-respondent No.3, but the Commissioner had declined that application vide order dated 04.08.2016. In the petition, the petitioner has contended that this Court while dealing with CRWP-1673-2010 titled as Dinesh v. State of Haryana and others has passed an order dated 18.11.2010 and had allowed such petition and directed respondents to grant parole to the petitioner in said Section. That Section 6 of the Act provides that release of prisoner on parole can be refused only on the ground that same is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order; that it is statutory right of a convict to avail parole under Section 3(1) (c) of the Act and this relief cannot be refused on any of the ground under Section 6 of the Act. However, in the present case request of petitioner for release on agricultural parole was rejected by competent authority merely on the ground that land was jointly owned by the petitioner and his brother and it was being cultivated by his brother. However, such act of respondent No.3 is unjustified and unsustainable. Inter alia in the petition the petitioner has referred to Section 6 of the Act, which is as under:-

(3.) According to the petitioner his family is in very poor condition. His old parents, wife and children are living in a house which is in bad condition. With rain and water ahead, petitioner sought parole to restore his social ties by repairing his house etc., the petitioner submits that he is behind bars since last 14 years and 06 months and has liability of old age parents, children and wife; that action of the respondents in granting parole to the petitioner is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Contitution of India and Section 3(1)(d) and Section 6 of the Act as amended in the year 2007.