CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts(1992) 01 P&H CK 0050

Fatta Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 13 January 1992 · Citation: (1992) 2 RCR(Criminal) 184

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.S.Chahal, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 10760-M of 1991

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 351 words

G.S. Chahal, J.

1.

Fatta Singh, petitioner, by means of this criminal miscellaneous under Section 482, Cr.P.C., read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has come to this Court for the issuance of an appropriate order of direction to the respondentauthorities to release him for six weeks Agricultural parole.

2.

The petitioner has been undergoing life imprisonment under the orders of the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, dated 9.3.1990. According to him, he has not been allowed any parole so far.

3.

In the reply filed by the respondent authorities, a plea had been taken that the case of the petitioner for the grant of parole was rejected on the report of the District Magistrate, apprehending breach of peace.

4.

The respondentauthorities have today filed and additional affidavit about the verification, on the basis of which the District Magistrate did not recommend release of the petitioner on parole. The same runs as under :

"Paras 2 to 7

Verification regarding the prisoner cited as subject has been got made through Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur who has made similar verification through local Police, who does not recommend release on parole, because not body in the village takes responsibility of the prisoner, except village Sarpanch. So release on parole has not been recommended by Senior Superintendent of police, Ferozepur."

5.

After going through the report, quoted above, the only ground taken is that no one except the Sarpanch of the Village is ready to take responsibility of the petitioner''s good conduct. This is ground assigned by the respondentauthorities for rejection of parole. Even if other people apprehend breach of peace, during the parole period of the petitioner, that will also not be a good ground, as there are sufficient provisions in the Act to ensure that the convictpetitioner does not commit any act of violence while on parole. The rejection was thus not as a valid ground. I hereby allow the criminal miscellaneous and direct the respondentauthorities to release the petitioner on parole for six weeks, on his furnishing the necessary bonds to the satisfaction on the District Magistrate, Ferozepur.

Misc allowed