Petitioner-convict sought extension of parole to attend a relative's marriage. Court held the release was already granted under prison parole rules by the competent authority without judicial intervention.
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.499 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: March 8, 2013
Shyam Sunder
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: None.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.W.P.No.W-238 of 2013
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.W.P.No.499 of 2013
The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for three days' extension of parole already granted to petitioner-convict to enable him to attend the marriage ceremony of brother-in-law, which is to be solemnised on 13.3.2013.
Perusal of petition shows that petitioner was ordered to be released on parole by the competent authority under Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act 1988 for four weeks and as per the said order, he was to report in District jail, Jind on 12.3.2013. However, no request for extension of parole was made by the petitioner to the competent authority, who granted him parole on his request.
Hence, no order is required to be passed in the present petition. Disposed of accordingly.
8.3.2013
meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
Shyam Sunder
State of Haryana
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
