Tek Chand @ Teki vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Tek Chand who is undergoing imprisonment for life and is confined in District Jail, Gurgaon, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his temporary release on parole.

As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner was convicted in a case of murder by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide judgment dated 20.1.1989. On 3.3.1993 he applied to Superintendent, District Jail, Gurgaon for temporary release for agricultural purposes on the ground that the only source of livelihood of his family was the income from the land belonging to him situated in village Mohna. There was no adult male member in the family who could perform agricultural operations and his temporary release was necessary for ploughing, sowing, harvesting and carrying out other agricultural operations. His case for release was not recommended by District Magistrate, Faridabad and so it was rejected vide order Annexure P/1 on the ground of apprehension of breach of peace. His conduct inside the jail remained good and he was never convicted of any jail offence. He had also availed parole three times.

In the return filed by the respondent it was alleged that the petitioner was released on emergency parole for a period of three weeks on 23.5.1992 to perform the last rites of his son who was murdered by the opposite party on 22.5.1992. While litting the pyre of his son the petitioner proclaimed that he will avenge the murder of his son by killing two persons. Although earlier agriculture parole was ordered but the bonds submitted by the petitioner were not accepted as there was apprehension of breach of peace and his release warrant was subsequently cancelled.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

This fact is made out that while the petitioner was undergoing imprisonment for life his son was murdered by the opposite faction. The petitioner was granted emergency parole to perform the funeral ceremony of his son and there in the presence of various persons he proclaimed that he will avenge the murder of his son by killing two persons of the opposite group. Earlier the petitioner was allowed agricultural parole but his warrants for release were cancelled as there was apprehension of breach of peace in view of the proclamation made by the petitioner at the time the funeral ceremony of his son was performed. It is correct that generally a convict whose conduct in jail is satisfactory is allowed parole for agricultural purposes when the only ground for rejecting his case for parole by the respondents is apprehension of breach of peace, but in the instant case the circumstances are different. There are reported to be two factions in the village and while the petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for committing murder of one of the persons of the opposite faction, his son too was murdered. The feelings, thus, ran high and there are chances of the petitioner trying to avenge the murder of his son. I, therefore, do not find it a fit case where the petitioner should be given concession of temporary release. The petition is dismissed.