Balwinder Singh vs State of Punjab and anr.

K.S. Bhalla, J.

Petitioner Balwinder Singh has moved this Criminal Writ Petition for temporary release on parole of Kunda Singh son of Kehar Singh, resident of Mal Singh Wala in Tehsil Mansa, District Bhatinda, who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life under the orders, dated 8th July, 1985, of the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda. The temporary release on parole is claimed on the ground of repairs/construction of the house which is in a dilapidated condition. It is said that the case for the grant of parole of the convict, Kunda Singh was duly recommended by the Superintendent Central Jail Bhatinda, and the same was rejected on the ground that the District Magistrate had not recommended the convict''s release. The said decision of the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, is claimed to be arbitrary.

From the return filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that the conduct of the convict in jail was satisfactory and it is further admitted therein that his application for parole was duly recommended by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bhatinda, on 22nd December, 1986. It is further stated that as soon as the report of the District Magistrate, Bhatinda is received, the case will be decided on merits and under the rules, meaning thereby that the same is still pending.

More than seven months have passed and ordinarily the case of the prisoner for release on parole should have been decided within that period. It is well established that the reasonable exercise of powers inheres its exercise within a reasonable time. It goes without saying that the applications received from the prisoners for their release on parole should be processed in accordance with the rules within a reasonable time and the State Governments cannot possibly sit tight over them. Unreasonable delay obviously amounts to denial and as such the case of the convict can be taken to have been rejected. Mr. Randhir Singh, Advocate for the Advocate General, Punjab, has brought to my notice during arguments that the District Magistrate, Bhatinda, has not recommended the case of the convict, and his report is negative on the ground that certain individuals apprehend danger from him as per the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police. As the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, has to act on the report of the District Magistrate, Bhatinda, formal rejection of the case of the convict too is obvious.

It has been said in the petition that there is no one in the family of the convict to look after the repair of the house. The repair of one''s house is a necessity and can very well be treated to be covered within the scope of clause (d) of subsection (1) Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. The rejection is not supported by any reasons and in any case, even the opinion of the District Magistrate, Bhatinda, is not based on any material. Only endangering the security of the State or the maintenance of the public order as contemplated in Section 6 of the Punjab good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 are recognised as a bar to such release and any apprehension to any individual cannot possibly stand in the way. The complainant party of the case in which the convict was convicted can never like his temporary release. I, therefore am of the opinion that the expected denial of the convict''s prayer is on extraneous and arbitrary grounds and cannot, be treated to be justified.

In the light of what is stated above, this petition is allowed and convict Kunda Singh is ordered to be temporarily released on four weeks'' parole to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Bhatinda.