The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a petition seeking agriculture parole for Mandeep Kumar, a life convict held as a 'Hardcore Prisoner'. The Court upheld that parole is a concession, not a right, and denied it because the petitioner had not completed the mandatory five-year imprisonment term required for hardcore prisoners.
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
Criminal Writ Petition No.1747 of 2015 Date of Decision : January 20, 2016
Mandeep Kumar
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
Present : Mr. Varinder Singh Rana, Advocate
Mr. Praveen Bhadu, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
T.P.S. MANN, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to the respondents to grant him six weeks' agriculture parole.
The petitioner stood convicted in FIR No.87 dated 30.5.2011 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC registered at Police Station Badhra, District Bhiwani vide judgment and order dated 14.8.2013 passed by the trial Court and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
SATISH KUMAR 2016.07.11 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Criminal Writ Petition No.1747 of 2015 -2-
According to the petitioner, his father had submitted an application to the Jail Superintendent, Bhiwani through registered post on 21.11.2015 for granting him six weeks' agriculture parole as he himself was handicapped person, whereas his another son is not in his control. Excepting the petitioner, there is no other able-bodied member in the family who could perform agricultural operations. Even the Gram Panchayat has recommended for releasing him on parole.
It is also the case of the petitioner that the jail authorities are not considering his case for parole on the ground that on 4.6.2013 one mobile phone was recovered from his possession and in that regard FIR No.388 dated 4.6.2013 under Section 42 of the Prisons Act stood registered against him at Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani. Accordingly, he had been categorized as 'Hardcore Prisoner' in view of the provisions of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 as amended by the Act of 2013. The amendment came into force on 3.10.2013 and as the mobile phone was recovered from him on 4.6.2013, i.e. prior to the amendment, therefore, the amended Act was not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Hence, the action of the authorities in not considering his case for release on parole is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Upon notice, reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is stated that as the petitioner was detected SATISH KUMAR using the cell phone on 4.6.2013 inside the jail premises and for this, 2016.07.11 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Criminal Writ Petition No.1747 of 2015 -3-
a case stood registered against him at Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani vide FIR No.388 dated 4.6.2013 under Section 42 of the Prisons Act, therefore, his case fell under the category of 'Hardcore Prisoner' and such a prisoner is entitled to be released on parole or furlough only after completing five years' imprisonment, including two years of under-trial period. He has undergone only four years, six months and twenty nine days' imprisonment as on 5.1.2016, including under-trial period of two years, two months and six days. As such, he has not completed five years' imprisonment, which shall not include imprisonment during trial period for more than two years. He falls short of the requisite period by seven months and seven days. Therefore, presently, he is not entitled to be released on parole as prayed for by him.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vakil Raj Vs. State of Haryana and others, Criminal Writ Petition No.1840 of 2014, decided on 28.11.2014, wherein it was held that the amended definition of 'Hardcore Prisoner' would be applicable to all the convicts who were convicted prior to amendment and insertion of clause (aa) in Section 2 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2012, the jail authorities could lawfully treat the petitioner as a 'Hardcore Prisoner' and, thus, deny him the concession of release on parole. Moreover, grant of parole is only a
SATISH KUMAR 2016.07.11 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Criminal Writ Petition No.1747 of 2015 -4-
concession and not a right and, therefore, could be regulated. At the same time, the concession of parole is admissible to such a 'Hardcore Prisoner' only if he has already completed five years' imprisonment, including under-trial for a maximum of two years. As on 5.1.2016, the petitioner was falling short of the requisite period by seven months and seven days, therefore, no relief can be granted to him in the present petition.
Dismissed.
( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE
January 20, 2016 satish
( RAMENDRA JAIN ) JUDGE
SATISH KUMAR 2016.07.11 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, categorized as a 'Hardcore Prisoner' under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, is entitled to agriculture parole after serving four years and six months
Whether the Division Bench judgment in Vakil Raj Vs. State of Haryana, which applied the amended definition of 'Hardcore Prisoner' to pre-amendment convicts, is applicable to the present case.
Whether the grant of parole, being a concession rather than a right, can be denied to the petitioner who has not completed the requisite imprisonment period.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vakil Raj vs. State of Haryana and othersFollowed¶21
Vakil Raj Vs. State of Haryana and others, Criminal Writ Petition No.1840 of 2014
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mandeep Kumar
State of Haryana
T.P.S. Mann
Ramendra Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
