- (1.) Petitioner Hem Raj son of Vijay Singh resident of village Chunchhakwas, District Jhajjar, now confined in District Jail, Rohtak, has filed the present criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a direction to the respondents for grant of 6 weeks emergency parole to the petitioner so as to attend his wife. His wife is stated to be suffering from coronary artery disease 'Angina on exertion class-III' and 'tripple vessel disease'. The petitioner has further assailed the order dated 10.9.2015 passed by the Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak (Annexure P-4) whereby having recourse to Section 10(ii) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner's (Temporary Release) Rules, 2007 (for short, the Rules), the application of the petitioner for grant of parole has been rejected as he does not fulfil the conditions of the Rules.
(2.) The petitioner was convicted in FIR No.160 dated 21.12.1985 under Sections 393, 398 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act registered at Police Station, Kalanaur. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and is, thus, undergoing the sentence in District Jail, Rohtak. His conviction was upheld upto the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has availed one parole after his conviction and due to family reasons, he could not surrender in jail well within time and absconded from parole from 22.11.2000 to 29.6.2014. For the said conduct of the petitioner, FIR No.183 dated 1.9.2014 under Sections 8 and 9 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) was registered against him in Police Station Beri. He was tried in the said FIR and was convicted and sentenced for a period of 6 months along with fine of Rs.500/- vide judgment and order dated 31.1.2015 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that vide order dated 10.9.2015 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner has been denied parole on the ground that he was absented for the aforesaid period. The denial of parole has attracted the principle of double jeopardy as he cannot be punished twice for the same offence. Learned counsel has stated that the wife of petitioner is suffering from serious heart ailment. She got treatment from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi and as per the discharge summary, she was advised Myocardial revascularization. The condition of his wife is not good. She was taken to General Hospital, Jhajjar and the doctors have advised her surgery, otherwise her life would be in danger. He has referred to the treatment being taken from the Department of Cardiology, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi and from General Hospital, Jhajjar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that taking into consideration the ailment of his wife, the petitioner requires parole. He has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in CRWP No.677 of 2014 titled as Deepak Versus State of Haryana and another decided on 3.6.2014 to contend that in terms of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act, the prisoner is entitled for parole if a member of his family has died or is seriously ill or the prisoner himself is seriously ill. The restriction of one year of imprisonment after conviction to be eligible for temporary release has been imposed by way of Rule 4 of the Rules. There being no such restriction in the Act, the Rules cannot supersede substantive provision of the Act.;