Dalip Singh vs State of Haryana

P.K. Jain, J.—This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a direction to the respondents to release the petitioner temporarily on three weeks'' furlough for agricultural purposes under Section 4 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge, Hisar by judgment dated 16.1.1991 and he is undergoing sentence in Central Jail, Hisar. He applied for grant of three weeks'' release on furlough under Section 4 of the Act. His case was recommended by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Hisar but the same was rejected by the District Magistrate by order dated 21.7.1994 on the ground of apprehension of breach of peace. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner has already availed parole and there was no untoward incident during his release on parole, and he surrendered before the authorities well in time; that his conduct inside the jail has always remained good and he has earned remission for 19 months for good conduct, and that the order rejecting request of the petitioner for release on furlough is quite vague in nature and without any material in support thereof. It has been further stated that there is no family member of the petitioner who can look after his agricultural land. His case has been recommended by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Nadhodi (Hisar).

Notice of motion was given to the respondents. In reply it has been admitted that the petitioner fulfils all the necessary conditions for his release on furlough as provided by Section 4 of the Act but his case has been rejected on the recommendation of the District Magistrate on account of apprehension of breach of public peace as per enquiry report. The averments made by the petitioner in para 5 that he has already availed parole many times without misusing that concession has not been denied anywhere in its reply by the respondents.

Thus it is not disputed by the learned State counsel that the petitioner fulfils all the necessary conditions as laid down in Section 4 of the Act for his release on furlough for a period of three weeks for agricultural purposes. The only reason being given by the authorities to reject the request of the petitioner is that there is likelihood of apprehension of breach of peace if the petitioner is released on furlough. Section 6 of the Act reads as under :

"Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4, no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act, if, on the report of the District Magistrate the State Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that this release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order."

It is apparent from the aforesaid provisions that if on the report of the District Magistrate, the State Government or any officer so authorised is satisfied that release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of the public order, then a request for release on parole or furlough has to be turned down but in the present case no such particulars have been disclosed by the State in its reply as to how release of the petitioner on furlough is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of the public order. The satisfaction of the concerned authority under Section 6 should be based on some material but no such material has been disclosed in the reply filed by the respondents. Admittedly the petitioner was released on parole earlier and he did not misuse that concession nor there was any untoward incident during that period.

In a number of judgments delivered by this Court, it has been held that what is material is whether the opposition to the release is based on certain facts including the conduct of the petitioner so as to conclude that release would endanger security of the State or would be prejudicial to the public order. If the request has been turned down without any data or material, nor any particulars have been disclosed as to how there would be apprehension of breach of peace in case the petitioner is released on parole/furlough, the petitioner is entitled to be released on parole/furlough if he satisfies all the conditions laid down in Section 3 or Section 4, as the case may be. Reference can be made to Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988(2) RecentCR 548 , Tarjinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 1992(3) RecentCR 562 P&H and Dinesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Haryana, 1994(2) RecentCR 71 .

In the present case the reason given for rejection of the request of the petitioner is quite vague and is not supported by any material on the record. The respondents have admitted in para 8 of the written statement that the petitioner fulfils all the necessary conditions for his release on furlough. Admittedly, the petitioner did not misuse the concession of parole already granted to him under Section 3 of the Act.

As a result of the reasons given above, this petition is allowed. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner be released on three weeks'' furlough for agricultural purposes on usual terms to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Hissar.