Gurdial Singh vs State of Punjab and anr.

Harphul Singh Brar, J.

In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the detenupetitioner Gurdial Singh has assailed the order, dated June 11, 1991 of the Financial Commissioner, Home and Secretary to Governor, Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, rejecting his prayer for premature release.

The factual position stated by the petitioner in his petition is that he had undergone more than 14 years sentence including remissions. It is specifically mentioned in the petition that the detenu had enjoyed parole on four occasions and furlough on three occasions, and there was no complaint of whatsoever nature against his antecedents or conduct during the period of parole/furlough. He has not committed any jail offence. It is further alleged in the petition that before granting parole/furlough, local police examined through their own angle and ultimately recommended his case and only thereafter he was released on parole/furlough. Furlough, according to the petitioner, is granted to only those convicts who have continuously maintained good conduct in Jail without any sort of complaint against their antecedents/conduct. The allegation of breach of peace on the release of the convict is absolutely wrong, he maintained as nobody ever made any complaint with regard to his conduct while he was on parole/furlough.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service the following authorities of this Court:

i) 1990(2) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 640;

ii) 1990(2) Recent CR 674, 685, 689;

iii) 1990(3) Recent CR 23, 24;

iv) Criminal Writ Petition No. 4036 of 1989.

(Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab and another, decided on July 24, 1990); and a judgment of Supreme Court in Bhagwant Saran and others v. State of U.P., 1983(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 504, in order to substantiate he argument that the petitioner cannot be denied premature release merely on the basis of apprehension of breach of peace; or a strong party faction in the village; or any such ground that the witnesses or the complainant party apprehended danger to breach of peace if the convict is released prematurely.

In the written statement filed by Shri B.D. Aggarwal, Joint Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, on behalf of the respondent State, he has not denied the factual position stated by the petitioner with regard to his undergoing the requisite sentence and the factum of the petitioner being on parole/furlough without any complaint from any side. However, it is simple stated therein that the premature release case of the petitioner has been rejected by the Government on merits and speaking order has been passed enumerating the reasons for rejection and as such, the petitioner is not eligible for premature release at this stage.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State, I find that case for premature release of the petitioner is made out from the facts stated in the petition and which remain unrebutted by the respondents. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not commit any Jail offence. He maintained good conduct throughout in the Jail and enjoyed parole/furlough several times and there is not even as iota of evidence which could show that anybody had any complaint or grievance against his release on parole/furlough. In view of this factual position, even the learned counsel for the State could not point out anything material in defence for not releasing the petitioner on premature release. Moreover, the detenu petitioner is released prematurely after execution of requisite bonds and furnishing of security undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour during such period and if he violates the terms and conditions of any such bond, he has to surrender himself for undergoing the remaining period of imprisonment.

In view of the facts stated above as well as the authorities cited at the bar, I order the premature release of the petitioner forthwith on usual terms and conditions which shall be imposed on him by the releasing Authorities. The petition, is thus, allowed in the above terms.