Dial Singh vs State of Punjab and anr.

K.S. Bhalla, J.—The petitioner, Dial Singh, who was sentenced to life imprisonment on 8.1.1.983 by Sessions Judge, Bhatinda for the offence of murder, has moved this petition for temporary release on furlough. He has contended that his case falls within four corners of Section 4 of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the ''Act'') and that his conduct in jail has been good. He has further contended that for the said reasons, he is entitled to temporary release on furlough and the denial therefrom by the Releasing Authority is arbitrary. The contention is also supported through Panachyatnama, Annexure P. 1,

The application for furlough of the petitioner was forwarded by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bhatinda on 5.5.1986 which necessarily implies that the conduct of the petitioner in jail was good and requirements of clause (b) of Subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Act stood satisfied, otherwise his ease would not have been forwarded for temporary release on furlough. Such release of the petitioner was, however, refused and his case was rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons. Panjab on 19.12.1986 as stated in the written statement.

It is not denied in the written statement that the conduct of the petitioner was satisfactory or necessary requirements for release on furlough stand satisfied. According to the written statement filed by way of affidavit of Dalip Singh, Chief. Welfare Officer in the office of the Inspector General of Prisons, Panjab, it is said that the case of the petitioner was rejected on the basis of a report made by the Local Police endorsed by the Senior Superintendent of Police/District Magistrate, Bhatinda, which has also been reproduced in the written statement That report appears to be of A.S.I., Police Station, Talwandi Sabo. It is nowhere mentioned in the written statement nor any Annexure is attached thereto if that report was in any manner accepted and endorsed by the District Magistrate, Bhatinda. Section 4. of the Act which deals with the temporary release of prisoners on furlough empowers the State Government to consult the District Magistrate and it nowhere provides for consultation with the Police, meaning thereby that satisfaction of the District Magistrate with regard to the collection was necessary. The same is not forthcoming on the record. In ''other words, there was no application of mind by the State Government in consultation with the District Magistrate, Bhatinda. Even otherwise the report incorporated in the written statement speaks of statements of complainant and eyewitnesses of the case in which the petitioner was convicted which naturally belong to the rival, camp and would be the last ''Persons to support the idea of release of the petitioner. They cannot possibly relish to see him coming out of jail, may be, on temporary release. Thus, the order of the State Government in this respect was arbitrary and based on extraneous considerations and for said reasons. the same cannot be justified.

In the light of what has been stated above, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner, Dial Singh is entitled to temporary release on furlough. Admittedly he was not released earlier and it 14 his first furlough. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner, Dial Singh be released temporarily on furlough for three weeks to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Bhatinda.