Kulwant Singh vs State of Haryana through its Director General of Prisons and ors.

H. S. Brar, J.

In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner detenu has prayed for grant of six weeks agricultural parole on the basis of his good conduct in the jail and to meet with the daily needs of his family members whose mainstay is from the agricultural income. It has been urged in the petition that the detenu has enjoyed temporary release on parole and the furlough leave during the entire period of sentence on ten occasions and the last parole for the three weeks period has been enjoyed by the detenu and the detenu surrendered back to custody on June 26, 1990. Thereafter, the detenu has never enjoyed any parole or furlough leaves etc. It is stated in the petition that he was denied six weeks agricultural parole on the basis of one jail punishment to his discredit which is dated November 9, 1990, which act of the respondents is arbitrary and unconstitutional, as even if this punishment is taken as a jail punishment, the same has not been judicially appraised by the learned Session Judge and, as such, it cannot be termed to be a legal jail punishment awarded to the detenu.

In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. it is averred that the petitioner has committed a prison offence on November 9, 1990, which resulted to the stoppage of parole concession to this prisoner for one year in accordance with the instructions, of Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh, dated October 1, 1990, annexed as Annexure R I with the written statement. It is further stated in para (b) of the written statement that the petitioner committed a serious jail offence on November 9, 1990 and, as such, as per instructions of the competent authority, he is not entitled for concession of parole for one year after the commission of prison offence.

Without going into the merits or demerits of the case, I feel that the detenu can be granted agricultural parole particularly in view of the fact that one year has already passed after the alleged commission of jail offence by him on November 9, 1990. In view of the facts stated above, the petitioner detenu is granted six weeks agricultural parole and the respondents are directed to release the detenu as such on his furnishing adequate security and performing other formalities before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, if the detenu has not committed any other jail offence after November 9190.

This petition is disposed of accordingly.