Sumit vs State of Haryana and others

KULDIP SINGH, J.

Reply by way of affidavit of Jai Kishan Chhillar, Superintendent, District Jail, Gurugram, on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5 filed in Court today and

same is taken on record.

Heard.

Petitioner was convicted in FIR No. 446, dated 21.11.2013, registered under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 452, 427, 148 IPC and under Section 25 of

Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Badshahpur, Gurugram. His appeal (CRA-D-903-DB-2017) is pending before this Court. Petitioner is stated to have

undergone actual custody of more than four years. Petitioner hpas applied for agriculture parole for six weeks (42 days), vide application dated

26.9.2018 (Annexure-P-2). The parole was for harvesting millet crop and sowing mustard crop.

State has filed reply by way of affidavit of Jai Kishan Chhillar, Superintendent, District Jail, Gurugram, on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5, which

shows that Superintendent, District Jail, Gurugram, has declined said application of petitioner, vide order dated 20.10.2018 (Annexure-R-7), on two

grounds, first is that a mobile phone was recovered from petitioner and second is that petitioner quarreled with   other co-prisoners and

committed jail offence, for which one month punishment of separate confinement was awarded. Both confinements were upheld after judicial

appraisal by learned District and Sessions Judge, Gurugram.

The learned counsel for petitioner contends that matter is to be ultimately decided by Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram. Superintendent,

District Jail, Gurugram, is merely to forward application of petitioner to concerned authority.

The learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gurdeep Singh Versus State of Haryana and others

(arising out of CRWP-1374-2017, decided on 7.12.2017), wherein it was held that mere recovery of a mobile phone is no ground to decline agriculture

parole.

In this case, petitioner has already undergone punishment for recovery of mobile phone and punishment for quarreling with other co-prisoners.

Petitioner cannot be punished twice for same offence.

It being so, impugned order dated 20.10.2018 (Annexure-R-7), passed by Superintendent, District Prison, Gurugram, is set aside and he is directed to

forward the case of petitioner to concerned authority, which shall take final decision within three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of

this order, ignoring the ground of recovery of a mobile phone and punishment awarded for quarreling with co-prisoners. Petition is accordingly

allowed.