Allowed

Sube Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Aug 2008CRM-M/14069/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order rejecting the petitioner's parole. The court held that the denial was arbitrary as no substantial material supported the apprehension of breach of peace. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to be released on parole under Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to be released on parole for six weeks under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, subject to heavy surety.

Sube Singh Vs State of Haryana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-14069 of 2008 Date of Decision: August 04, 2008

Sube Singh

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

State of Haryana

.....RESPONDENT(S)

. . .

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶10

PRESENT: - Mr. A.S. Trikha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Sura, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

¶11

. . .

¶12

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

¶13

The petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Annexure P-1. Vide Order Annexure P-1, the parole case of the petitioner was rejected. The reason given for the rejection is that police verification was got done through the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.). The report issued by the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, discloses that there is apprehension of breach of peace in case the petitioner is released on parole.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has pointed out that the petitioner has

¶15

Crl. Misc. No.M-14069 of 2008 [2]

¶16

earlier been availing parole. In the year 2007, the petitioner availed parole for agricultural purposes, and surrendered in time. The petitioner has been maintaining good conduct in jail without there being any complaint from the authorities. In this view of the matter, denial of parole for no legal or substantial reason, cannot be upheld. Annexure P-2 is a Jamabandi that indicates that the petitioner owns land which is required to be maintained.

¶17

Learned counsel has relied on Balwan Singh vs. State of Haryana & Another, 1991(3) Recent Criminal Reports 121.

¶18

Having regard to the facts stated which have not been denied by learned counsel for the State, I find that no plausible or explainable reason has been given for denying parole to the petitioner. The basis for parole i.e. ownership of land stands substantiated. The report saying that there is apprehension of breach of peace without any material, cannot be termed as reasonable apprehension.

¶19

In view of the above, the petition is

¶20

allowed.

¶21

The petitioner would be released for six weeks on parole under the provisions of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, however subject to heavy surety.

¶22

August 04, 2008

¶23

avin

Sube Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sube Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karamjit Singh Vs Pb. State and Ors.

Narain Singh Vs Rupinder Kaur Kand Ors.

Hamir Singh Vs Teja Singh & Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Javed Akhtar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.