VIPIN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H. P.
LAWS(HPH)-2021-3-38
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on March 05,2021

VIPIN KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF H. P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sureshwar Thakur,J. - (1.) The respondents, resist the writ claim, hence comprised in the latter, being directed to grant to the petitioner, the benefit, of, Section 3 of "The Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release)Act 1968, hereinafter referred to "the Act", for short. , provisions whereof, stand extracted hereinafter: "3. Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds (i) The Government may, in consultation with the District Magistrate and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified in sub-section (2) any prisoner if the Government is satisfied that,- (a) A member of the prisoner's family has died or is seriously ill; or (b) The marriage of the prisoner's son or daughter is to be celebrated; or (c) The temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operation of his land and no fried of the prisoner or a member of the prisoner's family is prepared to help him in this behalf in his absence; or (d) It is desirable so to do for any other sufficient cause. (2) The period of which is prisoner may be released shall be determined by the Government so as not to exceed,- (a) Where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1), two weeks; (b) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (b) of clause (d) of sub-section(1), four weeks; and (c) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1), six weeks. (3) The period of release under this section shall not count towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner. (4) The Government may, by notification, authorize any office to exercise its power under this section in respect of all or any of the grounds specified therein."
(2.) It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner had made an unsuccessful representation, before the authority concerned, claiming therein, the benefit, of, Section-3 of the Act. The official, present alongwith Mr. Hemant Vaid, the learned Addl. A.G., produces the records, appertaining to the writ claim. The learned Addl. A.G. has made a two fold submission(s), before this Court, for precluding it, in granting, the afore relief to the writ petition. The afore submission(s), are comprised in (a) the writ petitioner, availing, on two earlier occasions, the, benefit, of, the afore Act, (b), and, the report, of, Up-Pradhan, making expression(s), against the bestowment, of, the claim, upon the petitioner.
(3.) On an objective application of mind, vis-A-vis, the afore submissions, addressed before this Court, by the learned Addl. A.G., this Court finds that the endeavor, of, the writ petitioner, to construct a house, does constitute, the apt statutorily contemplated sufficient cause, for, thereupon, the benefit of Section 3 of the Act, being bestowed upon him. Furthermore, the expressions, adversarial to, the petitioner, as contained in the report of the Pradhan, of, the Panchayat concerned, cannot, also sway this Court, to, decline the relief, to, the writ petitioner, as, the afore report of the Pradhan, is, not accompanied, by a resolution, hence made by the Gram Sabha concerned,(i) thereupon, the expression(s) therein, are only, of, the Pradhan, of, the Panchayat concerned, and, do not, constitute expressions, of, the Gram Sabaha, of, the Panchayat concerned.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.