PREM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is being disposed of with the assistance rendered by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, who submits that earlier the petitioner was released on parole on 21st March, 1995 for seven days for the treatment of his ailing wife vide District Magistrate, Hisar, Order No. 454/PB dated 21 March, 1995, and this parole was extended for two weeks vide Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh wireless message No. 8272-73 GI/G.4 dated 27.3.1995. The petitioner was to surrender in the jail on 12th April, 1995, but he failed to surrender. He was arrested by the Police in case FIR No. 181 dated 2.4.1995, Police Station, Tohana, under Sections 148/149/302/323, Indian Penal Code, and case FIR No. 199 dated 13.4.1995 under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, of the same Police Station, and was got admitted by the Police in this jail on 15.4.1995.

(2.) THE petitioner in support of his petition has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court dated 29th October, 1996, rendered in Crl. Misc. No. 14614-M of 1996 Bhoop Singh v. The State of Haryana and others, the ratio of which is that either pendency of a case or conviction on criminal charge in respect of offence committed during parole is not necessarily an absolute bar for considering the grant of parole. Not disputing with the ratio laid down by his Lordship in the said judgment, it is observed that equally is the law that parole/furlough is a concession and no person is entitled as a matter of right to the grant of parole. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner when was on parole, allegedly committed a heinous offence, like murder, and attempt of murder with help of a fire-arm. In these circumstances parole cannot be enjoyed or sought as a matter of right by the petitioner. No merit. Dismissed.