Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Kumar Alias Kaka vs State Of Haryana on 31 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014485
CRWP-11530
11530-2024 (O&M) -1
1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
228
CRWP-11530-20242024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 31.01.2025
Ramesh Kumar @ Kaka ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Ms. Harshita, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, DAG, Haryana.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Article
Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing
the order dated 03.08.2023 (Annexure P
P-1),
1), passed by respondent No. 2-
Divisional Commissioner, Ambala, whereby the application filed by the
petitioner for grant of regular parole for a period of ten weeks had been
rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner had been held guilty and convicted for life imprisonment till natural
death in case arising out of FIR No. 480 dated 09.10.2011,, registered under
Sections 364-A,
364 302, 201 and 34 of IPC at Police Station City Jagadhri,
Yamuna Nagar.
Nagar He had filed an appeal against his conviction, which had been
dismissed by this Court, vide judgment dated 06.09.2019 passed in
CRA-D-815
815-DB-2014. The petitioner had moved an application for grant of
regular parole for a period of ten weeks, which was forwarded by the jail
authorities to respondent No. 2-Divisional
2 Divisional Commissioner, Ambala for final
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014485
CRWP-11530
11530-2024 (O&M) -2
2-
decision. However, the same had been rejected by respondent No. 2 on the
ground
round that the petitioner was not having any permanent residence and he
could not be supervised after being released on parole. It is further argued that
Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act, 2022, which
governs parole in Haryana, does not explicitly require a prisoner to have a
permanent residence as a condition precedent for grant of parole. The
petitioner is in custody for the last about 13 years and he has never availed
parole. It is also submitted that the friend of the petitioner, namely
nam
Mohammad Furkan, has given an undertaking that he has no objection if the
petitioner resides in his house during his parole period. While submitting that
the application of the petitioner for grant of regular parole had been dismissed
by respondent No. 2 in an arbitrary manner and without assigning any reason
as to how the lack of a permanent residence excludes him from being granted
the benefit of parole, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and
the petitioner deserves to be released on parole for a period of ten weeks.
3. Reply has been filed by the respondent
respondent-State.
State. It is submitted
therein and learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has argued that there
is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2
as the petitioner has no permanent residence
residence because he has rented out his
house and due to that reason, if the petitioner is granted parole, he cannot be
supervised. It is, thus, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length
and have also gone through the record carefully.
5. The petitioner has been convicted and sentence
sentenced for life
imprisonment till his natural death in the aforesaid case. It is the claim of the
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014485
CRWP-11530
11530-2024 (O&M) -3
3-
petitioner that his custody period is 13 years and he has never availed the
benefit of parole. A perusal of the impugned order as well as the reply, filed
on behalf of the respondent-State,
respondent State, reveals that the only ground taken by
respondent No. 2 for denying the grant of parole to the petitioner is that he has
no permanent residence as he has rented out his house. It is also revealed that
though the petitioner falls under the category of hardcore prisoner but he has
spent more than 08 years of imprisonment. As per proviso to Section 6(3) of
the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act, 2022, a
hardcore convicted prisoner who has been sentenced for imprisonment till
natural life shall be eligible for emergency parole or regular parole at par with
convicted prisoners only after completion of 07 years of imprisonment
mprisonment after
conviction. Hence, as per this provision, the petitioner is eligible for grant of
conviction.
parole. So far as the question of lack of a permanent residence is concerned,
the grounds of rejection of parole to the petitioner lack any legal parameter.
Simply because the petitioner has no permanent residence as he has rented out
his house is no ground to deny him the benefit of parole. On a pointed query
as to under what rule, the petitioner is necessarily required to have a
permanent residence for being
being granted parole, learned Deputy Advocate
General, Haryana has not been able to give any reply. The only requirement,
which seems genuine to this Court, is either to furnish the last confirmed
address of the convict or the address where he would ordinarily stay during
his parole period. This Court has perused Annexures P
P-3 and P-4,
4, which are
undertakings furnished by one Mohd. Furkan and Islam to the effect that they
have no objection if the petitioner resides in the house of Mohd. Furkan
during his parole. The said house of Mohd. Furkan is situated in District
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014485
CRWP-11530
11530-2024 (O&M) -4
4-
Yamuna Nagar only. There is no complaint that the petitioner has committed
any jail offence while in custody or his conduct has not been found to be good
enough for granting him parole. It is well known that the release of a convict
enabling him to meet his family members and friends is part of human rights
and the same should not be denied only on technical grounds. Keeping in view
the above discussion and the attendant facts and circumstances of tthe
he case, the
present petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is
ordered to be released on parole for a period of 10 weeks on the following
terms and conditions :
i. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.50,000/- with the surety of above named Mohd.
Furkan in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Jail
Superintendent.
ii. The petitioner shall report to the SHO of the local area
once a week i.e. on every Monday between 10:00 AM to
11:00 AM during the pperiod of parole.
iii. The petitioner shall furnish a telephone/mobile number
to the Jail Superintendent as well as SHO of local police
station, on which he can be contacted if required. The said
number shall be kept active and operational at all the
times by the petitioner.
iv. The petitioner shall reside at the address of above
named Mohd. Furkan i.e. H. No. 49/4, Raipur, Yamuna
Nagar, Haryana, subject to verification of this address by
the concerned authorities.
vi. Immediately upon expiry of the perio
period
d of parole, the
petitioner shall surrender before the Jail authorities.
vii. The period of parole shall be counted from the day
when the petitioner is released from jail.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014485
CRWP-11530
11530-2024 (O&M) -5
5-
ix. The Jail Superintendent shall be at liberty to impose
any other reasonable con
condition(s)
dition(s) which he deems fit in
the facts of the case.
6. Let a copy of this order be forwarded forthwith to the concerned
Jail Superintendent for necessary information and compliance.
31.01.2025
.2025 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
