Disposed

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC20 May 2010CRWP/849/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a life convict challenging the condition of a parole order imposed by the Jail Superintendent. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the Superintendent within one week to seek modification of the surety condition, rather than approaching a Panch directly.

What did the court decide?

Disposed with liberty to petitioner to approach Superintendent for modification of conditions within one week.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

Crl. W.P. No. 849 of 2010

¶3

DATE OF DECISION : 20.05.2010

¶4

Rakesh Kumar

¶5

.... PETITIONER

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Punjab and others

¶8

..... RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr. A.S. Trikha, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )

¶13

The petitioner is a life convict and is undergoing his sentence in Central Jail, Ludhiana. He had applied to the appropriate authority for grant of interim parole under the Punjab Good Conduct (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jalandhar, vide order dated 16.3.2010, has accepted his prayer and ordered for his temporary release on parole for four weeks, subject to the following conditions :

¶14

(i) In addition to the normal surety the Sarpanch or a Panch of the Gram Panchayat should stand surety for the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

¶15

(ii) He shall report to the police station of his residential area on every Monday at 10.30 A.M during his period of parole and shall leave the Police Station only on the written permission of a responsible official of the Police Station; and

¶16

Crl. W. P. No. 849 of 2010

¶17

-2-

¶18

(iii) If the petitioner prefers any request for parole in future he shall attach the documents to show the compliance of the above order.

¶19

It is the case of the petitioner that when he approached the Panch and the Sarpanch for standing surety for him for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, they refused on the ground that they are not in a position to give surety of Rs.1,00,000/-. Thereafter, without first approaching the authority, who imposed the said condition, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. We are of the opinion that in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner should have first approached the aforesaid authority by mentioning the fact that the said Sarpanch and the Panch are not ready to stand surety for him, therefore, the said condition be modified and the petitioner be permitted to give surety of any other resident of the village. Instead of doing so, he has filed the instant petition.

¶20

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jalandhar, seeking modification of the aforesaid condition and if any such application is filed within one week from today, the same shall be considered by the concerned authority within a further period of one week.

¶21

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶22

May 20, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) ndj JUDGE

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Om and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Kamlesh Vs State of Haryana

Kuldeep Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Shamsher Singh Vs State of Haryana

Amolak Singh@Teetu Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dharambir Vs State of Haryana and Others