ANITA CHAUDHRY, J. - (1.) THE instant criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 04.12.2012(Annexure P -5) passed by the Commissioner Hisar Division, Hisar. The petitioner has further prayed for directions for his release on four weeks' agricultural parole, so as to enable him to carry out agricultural pursuits. The brief facts are that the petitioner was tried in FIR No. 444 dated 04.10.1993, under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station City, Bhiwani and was convicted to life imprisonment. The petitioner was released on emergency parole for a period of three weeks upto 30.11.1998, but he did not surrender in time. Accordingly, a case under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2007 (for brevity, 'the Act') was registered against him. He was arrested by the police on 03.09.2004 after a overstay of 5 years and 10 months. The petitioner was again granted the concession of parole for four weeks on 05.04.2006 and was directed to surrender on 04.05.2006. This time also, the petitioner failed to surrender and after an overstay of 03 years, 11 months and 08 days, he was arrested on 13.04.2010. The case of the petitioner is that he was entitled for parole after two years of his surrender/ arrest and he cannot be debarred for all times to come.
(2.) THE petitioner applied for emergency parole to get his children admitted, which was rejected on 16.05.2012. The petitioner challenged the same by filing criminal writ petition No. 1446 of 2012, wherein directions were given to the jail authorities that in case the petitioner applied for parole, the same would be decided on the basis of his subsequent conduct and in case there was a favourable report by the jail Superintendent. The petitioner accordingly applied for agricultural parole, which was declined on similar grounds. The case put forth by the petitioner now is that, his case has been rejected on the ground that he was a hard -core prisoner, but his case did not fall in the category of hard -core prisoner and he was entitled to concession of parole and he was ready to furnish heavy sureties. It was pleaded that though he was involved in some more cases, but he has undergone sentence in three cases and in other cases he has been acquitted. On notice, the State has filed the reply and it was pleaded that the parole case of the petitioner was initiated on the request of the petitioner and the District Magistrate had conducted an enquiry and did not agree with the report of Tehsildar. On the basis of that report, the Superintendent of Police noted that the petitioner was undergoing sentence in case FIR No.444 dated 04.10.1993, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station City, Bhiwani and there were five other cases registered against him, the details of which are contained in Annexure R -1. Apart from that, the petitioner had come out on parole on two occasions and had misused the concession on both the occasions and over -stayed the period of about 05 years and 10 months in the first instance and about 03 years and 11 months on second occasion. He was arrested by the police after great efforts and there was danger to the complainant party. It was pleaded that the petitioner case falls under the Act and he is a hardcore prisoner and his temporary release was not recommended. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Rule 10(II) of the Act and has urged that where a convict overstays 30 days or more, then his case cannot be entertained before two years from the date of surrender/ arrest and the period of two years has lapsed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court renders in Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana, Crl. Writ Petition No. 2747 of 2011, decided on 17.01.2012 and Daya Kishan @ Ashok Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Crl. Writ Petition No. 180 of 2012, decided on 06.08.2012 and has contended that in an identical situation, this Court has directed the authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioners therein, without pressing the ground of overstay. He prayed for issuance of directions to the authorities to pass orders afresh on the request of the petitioner.
(3.) THE State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer. He has relied upon the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Ajay Jadeja @ Janak Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Crl. Writ Petition No. 2104 of 2012, decided on 14.12.2012. It has been contended that the Division Bench has considered the amendment in Section 5 -A of the principal Act and the petitioner is not entitled to any concession. It was also urged that the request for release on agricultural parole was made in December 2012, which otherwise has now become redundant.;