Devinder Bangali vs Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab and others

H.S. Brar, J.

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by Devinder Bangali, praying for his release on furlough under Section 4(1) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the Act).

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he detenu fulfils all the requisite conditions under Section 4(1) of the Act for his release on furlough. Though the date of sentence of the detenu petitioner is mentioned as November 2, 1987 yet it is not mentioned as to how much sentence he has already undergone in jail. The learned counsel states at the bar that the petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on November 2, 1987 and has undergone more than 41/2 years in jail. He further states that the detenu has not suffered any jail punishment and his conduct in the jail has been very good. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana, according to the counsel, recommended the case of the detenu for his release on furlough, to the Inspector General of Prisons, with a copy endorsed to the District Magistrate, Ludhiana. The counsel further states that the alleged verification made from Station House Officer, Police Station City and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Khanna, is not based upon facts. Ram Kali, Madan Lal and Chottu Ram mentioned in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents are not in any way connected with the detenupetitioner who is a resident of a different place. Moreover,the learned counsel submits that simple apprehension of breach of peace cannot be a ground deny furlough to the detenupetitioner. He has cited Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1990(1) Recent C.R. 267, to substantiate his arguments.

Written statement has been filed by Daular Singh, Chief Welfare Officer, of the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, on behalf of athe respondents. The only reason for denying the furlough to the detenupetitioner by the concerned Authority seems to be apprehension of breach of peace. It is however, not denied by the respondents that he had not undergone requisite period of detention so as to disentitle him to be released on furlough as required under Section 4 of the Act. Section 6 of the Act mandates that 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 any officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied tha this lease is likely to endanger the security of the State Government or the maintenance of public order. Simple apprehension of danger to some persons and even to the opposite faction in the village on release of the detenu on furlough cannot by any stretch of imagination amount to endanger the security of he State Government or the maintenance of public order. Such a report of apprehension of breach of peace cannot even disentitle a prison from granting concession of premature release to him as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwant Saran and other v. State of U.P. and others, 1983 (1) C.L.R. 504.

The withholding of concession of furlough stands on a better footing than a premature release case as the detenu had to be released for a short spell of time only. Such a vague report regarding the apprehension of breach of peace as narrated in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents is of no consequence in withholding the concession of furlough to the detnuepetitioner.

In view of may above discussion the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, is directed to release the detenu petitioner on furlough for twentyone days subject to his furnishing requisite bonds etc.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Application stands disposed of accordingly.