- (1.) MANJIT Singh, petitioner was convicted by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, under Section 376 IPC for committing rape on his minor maid, vide order dated 18.11.2013 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Consequently, the petitioner was confined in Model Jail, Chandigarh. He filed criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (in short 'the Act') for issuance of directions to the respondents to extend the parole of the petitioner for six weeks as his wife was suffering from menorrhagia and high blood pressure, and CAG (coronary angiography) was to be done on 26.04.2014 and his presence was required during pre -operative check -up. The petition was taken up on 17.04.2014, during vacation and notice of motion was issued for 28.04.2014 and parole of the petitioner was extended till 28.04.2014. On that date, the matter was put up before this Bench. This Court on that date further did not extend the parole.
(2.) CONSEQUENTLY , the petitioner surrendered before the jail authorities. However, during the hearing, it came to the notice of the Court that accused is convicted for committing rape of a minor domestic servant and was sentenced on 18.11.2013 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years. He was earlier also granted emergency parole for 14 days on 24.01.2014 and second time the parole was granted on 10.03.2014. Thus, two paroles were granted to the petitioner within two months. In these facts, the respondents were directed of file detailed affidavit giving reasons for granting parole to the petitioner twice in a month.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the Inspector General of Prisons and Addl. Inspector General of Prisons -cum -Superintendent of Prisons, U.T., Chandigarh filed their separate affidavits. We have gone through the affidavit filed by the Inspector General of Prisons, U.T., Chandigarh as well as Addl. Inspector General of Prisons -cum -Superintendent of Prisons, U.T., Chandigarh and find that it is a case where the parole was granted to the petitioner on insufficient and false grounds. No proper verification was done. Consequently, the petitioner remained on emergency parole from 24.01.2014 to 08.02.2014 and thereafter again remained on parole from 10.03.2014 to 28.04.2014. In this way, a person, who is convicted for committing rape of a minor girl remained on parole for two weeks at the first instance and then for one month and eighteen days in the second instance within a period of five months after his conviction and sentence.;