Ravi alias Jhandu vs State of Haryana and others

HARMEET SINGH DEOL, J.

Seeking quashing of impugned order dated 07.02.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.3 whereby parole of the petitioner for a period of 08 weeks has been rejected, the petitioner has come up before this Court by filing the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Perusal of the file shows that petitioner has filed an appeal against conviction before this Court bearing number CRA-D-1549-DB-2023, which has been admitted by this Court.

Vide order dated April 07, 2025 a Co-ordinate Division Bench had issued notices, however till date the State did not file any response to the writ petition, as such we are disposing of the present writ petition without waiting any further for the State's reply. Although no specific directions were given to file reply, but it was always open for the State to file their response or at least to hand over written instructions which was not done in the present case.

The present petition is pending for more than one year and we cannot give any further time. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated February 07, 2025 passed by Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal annexed as Annexure P-2. The reason for denial of parole is that on October 29, 2023 the convict along with other inmates quarreled with other undertrial prisoners and threaten them which led to registration of FIR under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324 and 506 IPC. Since the offence of 506 IPC attracted sentence for more than seven years, as such the petitioner automatically came in the category of hardcore prisoner.

The reason for rejection is that the eligibility for parole/furlough under Section 6 of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act 2022 clearly mentions that convict can be released only after completing five years of custody which has to be counted from the date of the latest offense, as such applicant was not found eligible. Although as per the record, the petitioner got involved in a case but considering that the trial is pending in the said case and it is not that serious in comparison to the current offense and the maximum sentence is 07 years under Section 506 IPC.

In 'Narinder Singh @ Nindi Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2020 (2) DC (Narcotics) 253,' provisions of 1962 Act were held to be beneficial in nature and were held to be aimed at reformation and rehabilitation of the prisoners. Parole is granted not only in an emergent situation but also for purpose of socializing with family members. It is necessary for a convict to maintain a contact with society which will facilitate his reformation and absorption in society after his release.

In this background, the Superintendent, District Prison Karnal shall decide the parole application of the petitioner again by not counting FIR No. 567 dated October 29, 2023 as a rider. It means the registration of FIR No. 567 shall not be a ground to deny parole if otherwise entitled. The petition is partly allowed and fresh decision be taken regarding parole application within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to come to this Court again if need arises. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.