Harender @ Harera vs State Of Haryana And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 7947 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Harender @ Harera vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 16 April, 2024

Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal, Kirti Singh

                                                                      2024:PHHC:050873-DB
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


               227                                   CRWP-3094-2024
                                                 DATE OF DECISION: 16.04.2024


               HARENDER @ HARERA                                           ... Petitioner (s)

                                           Versus

               STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS                                    ... Respondent(s)


               CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
                      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH


               Present:        Mr. Randeep Singh Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner.

                               Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl. AG, Haryana.


               ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to grant

him regular parole for a period of 10 weeks.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

filed an application for grant of regular parole but the same has not been

decided by the competent authority. He also submits that the petitioner had

been convicted in FIR No.177 dated 22.05.2012, registered under Sections

147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at

Police Station Hodal, District Palwal and sentenced to undergo imprisonment

for life. The petitioner was found to be in possession of a mobile phone for

which a case under Section 42A of the Prisons Act was registered against him

and in the trial, he was acquitted. He, therefore, submits that after his

acquittal in the case, the recovery of a mobile phone cannot be held against

him to deny him the benefit of regular parole on the pretext of the order being

judicially appraised by the Sessions Judge. In support of his submission, he

has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case

of Ajay versus State of Haryana and others bearing CRWP No.866 of 2017,

decided on 01.09.2017.

3. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has not filed any

application before the competent authority and in the event of his doing so, the

same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

4. Heard.

5. The petitioner would be at liberty to prefer an application before

the competent authority and the petition is disposed of with the direction to

the respondents that in the event of the petitioner doing so, the competent

authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law in the

light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay

Vs. State of Haryana and others, CRWP No.866 of 2017, decided on

01.09.2017.

(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE 16.04.2024 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No