Disposed
Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Punjab & Haryana HCCRWP/1802/2010
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.…
What the court decided
AI extract
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.…
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.W.P.No.1802 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:October 7, 2010
Ram Kumar
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.V.S.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.1036 of 2010
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.W.P.No.1802 of 2010
The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of direction to the respondents to consider the prayer of the petitioner for grant of six weeks parole so as to enable him to get himself operated from PGI, Chandigarh, as he suffered bone fracture on his left shoulder.
Heard.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that application, Annexure P1, has already been moved in this regard before respondent no.4, i.e., Superintendent, Central Jail, Hisar, on 25.9.2010 and however, no action has been taken on the same so far.
Hence, in view of these facts and as per request, the present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the application of the petitioner, Annexure P1, already stated to have been moved before respondent no.4, as per law, Rules and Instructions on the point, within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
7.10.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge
Ram Kumar
State of Haryana
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court