RAJESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through Crl. Misc. Petition No. 3673-M of 1999 filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Rajesh son of Mehar Singh, who is a life convict serving life sentence in District Jail, Sonepat, has prayed for the grant of parole. In this petition, he has alleged that he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life on 3.11.96 by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. He availed one agricultural parole for 42 days in 8/1997. He applied for agricultural parole to Superintendent, District Jail, Sonepat vide Application Annexure P2 in July, 1998. Respondents refused to entertain his prayer for agricultural parole saying that the same can be initiated two months after he had undergone jail punishment inflicted on him. He has also prayed that the punishment imposed upon him for the commission of the alleged jail offence be set aside because he was not afforded opportunity to cross-examine the witness and further he was not afforded opportunity to lead evidence in defence. This inherent defact cannot be cured even after the judicial appraisal by the District and Sessions Judge and approval accorded. He has prayed that the jail punishment imposed upon him be set aside because Sessions Judge has not passed a speaking order while judicially appraising and approving the punishment. Petitioner's elder brother and his wife and mother are in jail. There is only younger brother of the petitioner who cannot cultivate the land. Jail authorities are duty bound to initiate the parole case of the petitioner and grant him agricultural parole because he availed first agro parole peacefully and returned to jail in time. It is further alleged that vide Annexure P3, Assistant Superintendent, Jail investigated the matter. He was not at all concerned with the quarrel which was between Narinder Singh son of Suraj Bhan and Dev Singh C.N.W. Dev Singh was not on duty at the place of quarrel. Assistant Superintendent, Jail did not even move quasi-judicially to charge him for the jail offence. He did not examine any witness nor allowed the petitioner to lead any evidence in his defence.

(2.) Respondents contested the petitioner's prayer urging that he was rightly punished for jail offence. He gave beating to convict Night Watchman Arjan Singh son of Devi Singh with the assistance of one under-trial prisoner. He was punished with a cut off 7 days earned remission and the same was judicially appraised by the District & Sessions Judge vide his order No. 3947 dated 4.6.98. It was admitted that jail offence was no bar on the initiation of parole case under Section 3(1) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (in short the Act). Petitioner's case for parole will be initiated as soon as he makes an application for the grant of agricultural parole to him. It was admitted that the jail offence is no bar in the way of initiation of parole case under Section 3(1) of the Act. The jail offence is a bar in the way of initiation of furlough case only under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. No question of refusal of agricultural parole to him arises when he has not submitted any application or made any verbal request to grant him agricultural parole. Before the Superintendent, District Jail, Sonepat, he admitted that he had been bitten by a mad dog and he got lot of heat in his head and became uncontrollable. He made confession of his guilt.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Right to ask for parole is not affected even if the convict asking for parole has committed some Jail offence.