Ravi Virmani vs State of Haryana

Bakshish Kaur, J.

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.

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.

In the petition, it is pleaded that house of the petitioner consists of two rooms. Both the rooms are leaking. Wall of the rooms also require cement plastering. The leakage is required to be plugged before the onset of Monsoon, otherwise the situation will aggravate during the rainy season.

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."

On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Sanghi stated that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for committing the murder of four persons of a family. He was awarded death sentence. In other words, the District Magistrate, on inquiry had reported that the ground/cause put forth by the petitioner i.e. parole for house repairs has been found to be false and for that reason, his request was rejected. It is also contended that father of the petitioner has not supported his affidavit stating that he is an old person and therefore, unable to carry out house repairs. The petitioner is not entitled to grant of parole and to support his argument, he has placed reliance on Brahma v. State of Haryana and another, 1994(2) RCR 431.

Having considered the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to concession of parole. It is wellsettled that parole/furlough is a concession and no person is entitled to it as a matter of right.

Dismissed.