Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Puran Vs. State of Haryana and Others

Puran vs State of Haryana and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Apr 12, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1069159

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Puran

Respondent

State of Haryana and Others

Excerpt

in the high court of punjab and haryana, at chandigarh criminal writ petition no.790 of 2013 date of decision:12. 4.2013 puran ..petitioner versus state of haryana and others ..respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice jasbir singh, acting chief justice. hon'ble mr.justice inderjit singh. present: mr.b.s.dandiwal, advocate for the petitioner. jasbir singh, acting chief justice (oral) this writ petition has been filed seeking temporary release of the petitioner on parole for a period of three weeks. earlier also, the petitioner approached this court by filing criminal writ petition no.388 of 2013. it was his grievance that despite application moved, his case for temporary release has not been taken up. that writ petition was disposed of by this court vide order dated 22.2.2013 directing the respondents to decide representation, filed by the petitioner, as per law. thereafter, an order (annexure p5) has been passed by the authority concerned, which is impugned in this writ petition. in that order, it is specifically stated that the petitioner did not file any application, as alleged, for emergency parole. even then the authorities decided to take up his matter and he was asked to produce criminal writ petition no.790 o”2. on record evidence to show that his wife was suffering from some disease as alleged. however, he failed to do so. it was further noticed that the petitioner has not completed one year in jail after conviction and as such he is not entitled to get any benefit of temporary release. we feel that the order (annexure p5) passed by the authorities is perfectly justified. for making a misstatement in criminal writ petition no.388 of 2013 by stating that representation filed by the petitioner has not been decided, we may have imposed heavy costs upon the petitioner. however, on account of his detention in jail, we are avoiding to pass that order. dismissed. (jasbir singh) judge (inderjit singh) judge april 12, 2013 “dk”.

Full Judgment

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Writ Petition No.790 of 2013 Date of Decision:

12. 4.2013 Puran ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice.

Hon'ble Mr.Justice Inderjit Singh.

Present: Mr.B.S.Dandiwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) This writ petition has been filed seeking temporary release of the petitioner on parole for a period of three weeks.

Earlier also, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Criminal Writ Petition No.388 of 2013.

It was his grievance that despite application moved, his case for temporary release has not been taken up.

That writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 22.2.2013 directing the respondents to decide representation, filed by the petitioner, as per law.

Thereafter, an order (Annexure P5) has been passed by the authority concerned, which is impugned in this writ petition.

In that order, it is specifically stated that the petitioner did not file any application, as alleged, for emergency parole.

Even then the authorities decided to take up his matter and he was asked to produce Criminal Writ Petition No.790 o”

2. on record evidence to show that his wife was suffering from some disease as alleged.

However, he failed to do so.

It was further noticed that the petitioner has not completed one year in jail after conviction and as such he is not entitled to get any benefit of temporary release.

We feel that the order (Annexure P5) passed by the authorities is perfectly justified.

For making a misstatement in Criminal Writ Petition No.388 of 2013 by stating that representation filed by the petitioner has not been decided, we may have imposed heavy costs upon the petitioner.

However, on account of his detention in jail, we are avoiding to pass that order.

Dismissed.

(Jasbir Singh) Judge (Inderjit Singh) Judge April 12, 2013 “DK”.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial