SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HAYRANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a life convict, presently lodged in District Jail, Yamuna Nagar, has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to release him on parole for four weeks so that he may be able to make arrangement for the admission of his children in School. The application was filed by the petitioner under Section 3(i)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). The said application has not been allegedly forwarded by the Jail Superintendent to the concerned authority for his report.

(2.) After notice, the respondents have filed reply in which it is averred that the petitioner was granted parole on 24.11.2009 for four weeks and was directed to surrender on 23.12.2009 but he absconded for a period of 5 years, 2 months and 19 days. Thereafter, he was arrested on 14.3.2015 and a case was registered vide FIR.No.30 dated 22.1.2010 under Sections 8/9 of HGCP Act, P.S.City Jagadhari and one more FIR.No.127 dated 5.3.2014 under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station City Jagadhari was registered against the petitioner in which he has been convicted and sentenced for the period already undergone and in case FIR.No.30 dated 22.1.2010, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- vide order dated 3.9.2015. It is further averred that one more FIR.No.365 dated 18.6.2016 under Section 42-A of Prisons Act, P.S.City Jagadhari was registered against the petitioner as he was found in possession of mobile phone in the jail. The petitioner is facing trial in case FIR.No.1164 dated 24.7.2017 under Section 42 of Prisons Act, P.S.City Jagadhari which is pending before the Court of ACJM Yamuna Nagar as he is found in possession of another mobile phone in jail. The respondents have averred that the petitioner falls in the category of Hardcore prisoner in terms of the provisions of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners' (Temporary Release) Amended Act, 2013.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that except for the aforesaid offence, there is no other allegation against the petitioner who is in dire need of parole for the purpose of making arrangement of the admission of his school going children.