Dilwara Singh vs State of Punjab

G.S. Chahal, J.

Dilwara Singh seeks parole for four weeks so as to enable him to repair his house. His application to the Inspector General of Prisons had been rejected vide Memo. No.45240 GIP/P4R92D760 dated 910.1987.

In the return filed, it was admitted that the parole case of the petitioner had been initiated by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana for house repairs. The District Magistrate was then consulted and the following report was made by the Senior Superintendent of Police :

"Inquiry was made regarding parole release of convict Dilwara Singh through the S.H.O, P.S. Jagraon and Circle Officer. According to their report there is apprehension of breach of peace on release of abovesaid convict. Prosecution witnesses and complainant party also feels danger to their lives. So parole release of abovesaid convict is not recommended. I also agree with the report of the S.H.O. and Circle Officer, and due to abovesaid reason parole release is not recommended."

The District Magistrate thus did not recommend the parole release of the petitioner.

In Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1988(2) Recent C.R. 548, Chowdhri, J. held that parole can be refused on account of Security of State and not when there is a law and order problem. It was 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. Minor breaches of public peace do not come under security of State.

I am in perfect agreement with the observation made by Chowdhri, J. in Joginder Singh''s case (supra) and applying the same principle to the case in hand, I hereby allow the petition and grant four weeks'' parole to the petitioner furnishing bond to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Ludhiana.