Aman Singh vs State of Haryana

Nanak Chand Khichi, J.

The petitioner, who is presently confined in District Jail, Sonepat, was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak on 30.7.1990. He has undergone more than seven years actual sentence of life imprisonment including the trial period and he had not committed any jail offence so far. The case of the petitioner to avail furlough for 2 weeks under Section 4 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short the ''Act''), was recommended by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 and District Magistrate, Rohtak, vide letter No. 643/R, dated 5.12.1995. However, the request of the petitioner was declined by respondent No. 1 vide Annexure P.1, dated 21.3.1996, for the following reasons :

"2. According to the report of D.M. Rohtak, the brother and sister of convict Aman Singh S/o Mange Ram are living at present in village Mandothi. Mandothi is a sensitive village. Any mishap can happen on the release on furlough of this convict. Due to this cause, the D.M. Rohtak has not recommended the release on furlough of the above named convict Aman Singh s/o Mange Ram. The Director General of Prisons, Haryana, after consideration, has rejected the furlough case. The convict be informed accordingly about this decision and an entry of the rejection order be made in his history ticket. After giving the copy of this rejection order to the convict, this office be also informed."

By way of amended petition the petitioner has sought the quashment of the order Annexure P.1, dated 23.1.1996 and for issuance of direction to the respondents to release him on furlough for a period of 2 week is under section 4 of the Act.

The respondents in para 3 of the return have pleaded as under :

"3. That the contents of para No. 3 are admitted being a matter of record. But it is submitted for the kind perusal of this Hon''ble High Court that the furlough case of the petitioner was not recommended by the District Magistrate, Rohtak, vide his letter No. 643/R dated 5.12.1995 under the provisions of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 section 6 (attached as Annexure R.1) on the basis of the report of the S.P. Rohtak and subsequently the furlough case was rejected by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana vide his letter No. 5373 GI/G5 dated 21.3.1996 (attached as Ann. R.2) as the release on furlough was not recommended by the District Magistrate, Rohtak."

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the record carefully.

At this stage, it would be relevant to reproduce section 4 of the Act, which reads as under :

"4 (1) The State Government or any other officer authorised by it in this behalf may, in consultation with such other officer as may be appointed by the State Government, by notification, and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily, on furlough, any prisoner who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than four years and who (a) has, immediately, before the date of his temporary release, undergone continuous imprisonment for a period of three years, inclusive of the sentence of detention, if any;

(b) has not during such period committed any jail offence (except an offence punished by warning) and has earned at least three annual good conduct remissions:

Provided that nothing therein shall apply to a prisoner who

(i) is a habitual offender as defined in subsection (3) of section 2 of Punjab Habitual Offenders (Control and Reform) Act; or

(ii) has been convicted of dacoity or such other offence as the State Government may, by notification, specify.

(2) The period of furlough for which a prisoner is eligible under subsection (1) shall be three weeks during the first year of his release and two weeks during each successive year thereafter."

A bare perusal of section 4 quoted above, would show that a convict is entitled to be released on furlough only if he has undergone continuous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and has not during such period committed any jail offence and has earned at least 3 good conduct remissions. Admittedly, the petitioner has satisfied all these conditions and that is why his case was recommended by respondent No. 2. It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner qualifies for consideration for release on furlough. The ground taken by the respondents for rejection of the case of the petitioner for release on 2 weeks furlough is that in view of the report of the Superintendent of Police his release can be harmful to the opposite party and there would be danger of breach of peace in the village. The District Magistrate, Rohtak agreed with the report of the police and did not recommend the release of the petitioner on furlough. Time and again it has been held by this Court that temporary release can be denied to a prisoner only in the event where his release would endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order. But the mere fact that the release of the petitioner would lead to apprehension of breach of peace, is no ground to decline the prayer. The mere apprehension of the kind expressed by the respondents in their reply, does not fall within either of these two categories.

It would be pertinent to mention here that as per the reply of the respondents, the petitioner had earlier availed 4 weeks parole from 8.2.1995 to 9.3.1995, sanctioned by this Court vide order passed in Crl. Misc. 1726M of 1994. This shows that earlier too the petitioner had to approach the Court for his release on parole. There is nothing on record that after he was released on parole earlier, the petitioner committed any offence outside jail or his release as such led to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public peace. In Criminal Misc. No. 18695, Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and ors., decided on 13.12.1995, this court held that section 4 certainly indicates more liberal approach in permitting a prisoner to be released on furlough for the restricted period as specified in the provisions of the said section. The purpose of enacting the provisions of the said Act is not to deprive a convict of social and family life in its entirety. In the instant case, I find that the rejection of the petitioner''s prayer for his release on furlough for 2 weeks was on extraneous and arbitrary grounds and is not at all justified.

In view of what has been held above, the petition is allowed and the impugned order Annexure P1, dated 21.3.96 is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on furlough of a period of 2 weeks and this period shall commence from the date of his release. The petitioner will be released by the District Magistrate, Rohtak, subject to such terms and conditions as he may deem necessary. On expiry of the period of furlough, the petitioner shall surrender before the Superintendent, District Jail, Sonepat to undergo the remaining part of the sentence and in case he fails to surrender, the State would be at liberty to apprehend him without any further reference to this Court.

Copies of this order be sent to the District Magistrate, Rohtak, as well as the Superintendent, District Jail, Sonepat, for compliance.