Harcharan Singh v. State Of Punjab And ORS
CWP Nos.18083 and 7107 of 2018 [ 1 ] *****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH (1) CWP No.18083 of 2018 Date of decision:September 25, 2018 Harcharan Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
(2) CWP No.7107 of 2018 Date of decision:September 25, 2018 Harcharan Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present:
Mr. Kulbir Singh Sekhon, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sahil Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
**** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
The petitioner is a life convict. He was tried in a case registered vide FIR No.62 dated 16.04.1997, under Sections 302/308/148/149 IPC and under Sections 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station City, Abohar and convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur on 24.12.2014.
The petitioner was released on 6 weeks' parole on 08.02.2018 and was to surrender back on 23.03.2018. It is alleged that he has suffered paralytic attack on 04.03.2018 and had filed CWP No.7107 of 2018 for extension of parole for a period of three months. On 24.04.2018, the said writ petition was adjourned for 08.08.2018 by extending the parole by three VINOD KUMAR 2018.10.03 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document phhc
CWP Nos.18083 and 7107 of 2018 [ 2 ] ***** months. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed for further extension of parole in which notice was issued on 24.07.2018 for 20.09.2018 and operation and effect of the order dated 24.04.2018 passed in CWP No.7107 of 2018 was ordered to be continued till the next date of hearing. On 08.08.2018, CWP No.7107 of 2018 was ordered to be heard along with CWP No.18083 of 2018. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is on parole w.e.f. 08.02.2018 till today and, thus, he has availed the parole for a period of 7 months and about 18 days. However, he is still asking for further extension of parole. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the available record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be further allowed to remain out of jail on the pretext of a paralytic attack suffered by him. The petitioner has already had a long stay on parole for a period of 7 months and 18 days and now he would be looked after by the jail authorities in the Jail Hospital.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in both the petitions and hence, same are hereby dismissed, though without any order as to costs. September 25, 2018 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge Whether speaking / reasoned:
Yes/No Whether Reportable:
Yes/No VINOD KUMAR 2018.10.03 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document phhc