Bharpur Singh vs State of Haryana

G. S. Chahal. J.

Bharpur Singh is undergoing life imprisonment after conviction under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani on 30.10.1985 and seeks his release on furlough under Section 4 (1) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This temporary release on furlough was recommended by the Superintendent, Jail, Bhiwani after watching his conduct. The petitioner''s father was in jail. One of his petitioner. He thus needed to visit his house for agricultural purposes and settling the domestic affairs. The petitioner had previously gone on parole from 9101989 to 21111989 and peacefully spent that period and surrendered to jail in time on expiry of the parole. The case of the petitioner has been rejected by the authorities on the basis of a report made by the police. The petitioner is not a habitual offender and has not been convicted of any such offence where the furlough should be disallowed.

In turn the respondent pleaded that report of the of Police, Bhiwani reveals that the release of the petitioner could endanger maintenance of public order in the village because he had committed a murder during the last parole. The furlough had thus been disallowed on the recommendation of District Magistrate.

It is not disputed at the bar that the petitioner was on parole in another case when the murder was committed for which he has been convicted and undergoing life imprisonment. A reference to the orders of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1006 of 1989 shows that the petitioner had been allowed parole for a period of six weeks and the fact of petitioner having committed the murder while undergoing imprisonment in the other case had been considered. In Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1988(2) Recent Criminal Report 548 Chowdhri, J., had made an exhaustive study on the case laws on the subject and held that parole can be refused to a life convict only on account of security of State and not when there is law and order problem. He has further explained that security of State is endangered by crimes of violence intended to overthrow the Government, waging of war and rebellion against Govt. etc.

I am in perfect agreement with the observation made by Chowdhri, J., in Joginder Singh''s case (supra). Applying the same principle to the case in hand, I am of the view that furlough could not be refused to the petitioner on the basis that on previous occasion he had committed an offence while being on furlough in other case. I hereby allow the petition and order that the petitioner shall be released on three weeks furlough on furnishing security bond to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Bhiwani.