RAVI VIRMANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks parole for house repairs by way of filing this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and also prays for quashing order Annexure P.1 vide which his application for grant of parole was rejected.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Ashwani Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.K. Sanghi, learned counsel for the complainant and Ms. Surekhsha Sharma, learned State counsel.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the report of the District Magistrate giving the reasons for denying the concession of parole is not correct. The District Magistrate has not recommended the grant of parole to the petitioner on the ground that there is apprehension of breach of peace. This reasoning is not correct. Annexure P.2 is a report made by Incharge, PP No. 2 PS Kotwali Faridabad which also bears the signatures of several persons belonging to the village of the petitioner. They have stated that the house is in a dilapidated condition and that there is no apprehension of breach of peace in the event of visit of Ravi i.e. the petitioner on parole. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that the report Annexure P.2 shows that there is no apprehension of breach of peace and the request made by the petitioner is genuine. He has cited Chander Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1988(2) RCC 548 to contend that mere apprehension of breach of peace in the village will not fall within the purport of words "security of the State or the maintenance of public order."