Chhaju (Detenu) vs State of Haryana and anr

K.S. Bhalla, J.

Petitioner Chhaju son of Ramji Lal is undergoing imprisonment for life in Central Jail, Hissar in compliance with the order dated 11 th February, 1985 of Session Court, Hissar. He has filed instant criminal writ petition for his temporary release on furlough/parole under Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. He has contended therein that be has undergone actual sentence of more than three years excluding remissions and has not committed any jail offence rather, on the other hand, he has earned annual good conduct remissions. He has also alleged therein that he has to look after his agricultural land and there is no other elderly or responsible male member at home to look after his agricultural land, which is the only source of income for the family. In the prayer clause he has sought his temporary release for a span of three weeks.

Petitioner applied for temporary release on parole under Section 3(1)(c) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, as applicable to the State of Haryana for agricultural purposes and his application was duly recommended by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Hissar. His prayer, however, was rejected by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana. on 20th November, 1986, on the ground that there could be danger to breach of peace, relying upon report of District Magistrate, Hissar. Present criminal writ petition was preferred by Chhaju for his temporary release thereafter stating that rejection of his case of parole by the Releasing Authority was arbitrary and illegal.

From the return filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that the conduct of the petitioner in jail was good. It is also admitted therein that his application for parole was duly recommended by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Hissar, and that the petitioner''s prayer was rejected on the ground that the district authorities had reported that petitioner''s temporary release could be dangerous to the public peace. This opinion is not based on any material and in the light of the terminology looks on the face of it, imaginary. No attempt has been mode to indicate at to how law and order was likely to be adversely affected by the release of the petitioner on parole whose conduct in jail was rather found good. I, in the circumstances find that the denial of the petitioner''s prayer was not extraneous and arbitrary grounds and was not at all justified.

In the light of what is stated above, the petitioner is ordered to be temporarily released on three weeks parole, as asked for by him to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Hissar.