This judgment grants parole to a prisoner for one week as the competent authority failed to decide on a parole plea within the stipulated one-month period from a previous order dated 26.09.2008.
Petitioner released on parole for one week subject to furnishing adequate sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-28095 of 2008
Date of Decision: October 30, 2008
Narender Kumar
… Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others.
… Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND.
Present: Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner.
S.D. Anand, J.
Crl. Misc. Nos. 49276 to 49278 of 2008
Allowed, as prayed for.
Crl. Misc. No. M-28095 of 2008
Argues that the order dated 26.09.2008 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No.M-25228 of 2008 had not been complied with. That order required the Competent Authority to take a decision on the parole plea of the petitioner – prisoner within one month from the date of the order.
Notice of motion.
2
Crl. Misc. No. M-28095 of 2008
On the asking of the Court, Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State.
The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the order dated 26.09.2008 in Criminal Misc. No.M-25228 of 2008 (requiring the Competent Authority to dispose of the parole plea of the petitioner – prisoner within one month from the date of the order), no decision has been communicated to the petitioner – prisoner.
In view of the fact that the petitioner – prisoner requires parole to be able to available by the side of his wife at the time of her delivery, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on parole for a period of one week. The release shall, of course, be subject to the furnishing of adequate sureties to the satisfaction of the Authority Competent in the relevant behalf. The parole plea is being allowed by the Court in view of the fact that the order dated 26.9.2008 had not been complied with by the Competent Authority. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the Competent Authority.
Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary.
October 30, 2008 vkd
( S.D. Anand ) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be released on parole given the non-compliance with a previous order requiring a decision within one month.
Whether the court can direct parole for a prisoner nécessite to be with his wife during delivery due to delay in authority's decision.
Narender Kumar
State of Haryana
S.D. Anand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
