Balwan Singh vs State of Haryana and anr.

G.S. Chahal, J.

Balwan Singh has moved this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for the issuance of a direction for his release on parole for 6 weeks.

The petitioner pleads that he was undergoing life imprisonment for an offence under 302 of the Indian Penal Code under the orders dated 1851982, passed by the Sessions Judge, Hissar. At the time of filing this petition, he had undergone 7 years 11 months 25 days (inclusive of actual sentence, remissions and undertrial period). His mother has since died. He has his old father and his wife at his native village, but there is no able bodied person to look after his land. Even his house has fallen down due to rains and the same needs repairs. He applied for parole which was recommended, but the same was rejected on the ground that the local Police had reported that if he was released, there would be danger to the law and order situation in the area. His previous application in this regard had also been rejected.

In the return filed, the respondentauthorities pleaded that the case of the petitioner was initiated, but was finally rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana.

The murder was admittedly committed in the State of Hry. and the petitioner is to go to his village situated in the State of Punjab, in district Bathinda. Admittedly, the petitioner has maintained satisfactory conduct inside the jail. The jail authorities have placed on record Annexure R2 dated 2891987, the order of rejection of his application. The relevant portion thereof reads as under :

"..According to the report of the District Magistrate, Bhatinda, if convict Balwan S/o Jit Singh is released on parole, there can be danger to the maintenance of public order. In order of this report, the petition dated 1021987 of this convict regarding grant of parole, after due consideration, has been rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana. The convict may be informed of this decision.

The respondentauthorities have not placed on the record the material on the basis of which they considered that petitioner''s release on parole would endanger public order. The petitioner has not gone outside the jail since his conviction and his previous application for parole has also been dismissed. In Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988(2) Recent C.R. 548, A.P. Chowdhri, J. held that complainant apprehending danger and opposing parole furnishes no ground to refuse parole. Parole can be refused on account of danger to security of State and not when there is law and order problem. Security of State is endangered by crimes of violence intended to overthrow the Government, waiting of war and rebellion against Government etc. However, minor breaches of public peace do not come under the term endangering securing of State. Enough provision is made to keep a cheek on the prisoner while on parole. I endorse this view.

The petitioner should be given an opportunity to socialise with his covillagers, as also family members, and also be given an opportunity of looking after his land and repairing his house. After breathing air of liberty for a short spell, he will realise what imprisonment really means and that commission of crime never pays. This step will, in all probability, make him a better citizen when he comes out of jail after undergoing life imprisonment. The aim of life imprisonment is obviously to mend him, besides its working as a deterrent to him and the like persons.

I hereby allow the petition and direct that the petitioner be released on parole for 4 weeks, subject to his furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Bathinda.