Read Order: PARVEEN ALIAS LILU v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, November 25,2021: While referring to Section 3 (1) (a) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that it would be open for a convict to be released temporarily, if the State Government is satisfied that a member of the prisoner’s family had died or is seriously ill or the prisoner himself is seriously ill.

The petitioner challenged the Order, passed by the Superintendent of Jail, Rohtak(third respondent), whereby the request of the petitioner for grant of emergency parole for a period of six weeks was declined.

Petitioner’s counsel submitted that an application had been submitted by the petitioner seeking parole as per provisions of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 to take care of his pregnant wife. It was argued that the wife of the petitioner has not been feeling well and there has been a termination of pregnancy and under such circumstances, wife of the petitioner has to be accorded requisite medical treatment and she would be in need of emotional support.

The Division Bench of Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa and Justice Vinod S.Bhardwaj mentioned that the impugned order in question would reveal that the factum as regards the ill health of the wife of the petitioner had been verified by the Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak through Station House Officer, Police Station, Sadar Rohtak. 

According to the High Court, such exercise of verification revealed that the wife of the petitioner herein was pregnant and suffered a miscarriage on October 14,2021. It was further averred that the health condition of Preeti was now normal and furthermore, mother of the petitioner was present at home to take care of her daughter-in-law.

The Bench referred to section 3 (1) (a) and also opined that rejection of the request of the petitioner for emergency parole was on valid and cogent reasons and on verification of the health status of his wife and as per relevant statutory provisions. 

Even otherwise no material or document had been placed on record and neither had any such material been adverted to during the course of arguments which would indicate the wife of the petitioner to be suffering from any serious ailment, added the Court.

Therefore, without finding any infirmity in the decision taken by the competent authority, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment