Gurnam Singh vs State of Punjab and others

Harphul Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking an intervention of the Court in granting six weeks agricultural parole to the petitioner under Section 3(1) (c) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (herein after called the Act). 2. The petitioner was convicted on November 26, 1986, under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge, Sangrur, on November 16, 1987. The petitioner has stated in the petition that he had already undergone more than 41/2 years imprisonment without committing any jail offence and no punishment has so far been awarded to him, which shows that the conduct and behaviour of the detenu in jail are good and satisfactory. 3. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is a farmer and there is not other male member in his family who could plough the fields. He is a cultivator and plough fields himself. He is the only head and breadwinner of the family. There is no one except him to manage the fields and encash the crops for the existence of his family members. 4. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner applied for grant of six weeks agricultural parole to the Jail Authorities but the said case of the petitioner was rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons, vide No. 22214 GI/G.S.R. 92., dated April 22, 1991, without following the procedure for grant of agricultural parole. 5. Written statement has been filed by the respondents. It is discernible from the reply itself that the case of the petitioner for grant of six weeks agricultural parole was initiated by the Superintendent, Central Jail, respondent No. 2, but the same after consideration, was rejected. It is stated in the reply that the petitioner was released on bail by the order of Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. 18919/1979 and during bail, he committed another offence and was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur on November 16, 1987 and was rearrested on November 26, 1987. He is, therefore, not entitled to agricultural parole as he was convicted for the second offence during bail period. It is further stated in the reply that the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab had rejected the case of the petitioner for release on agricultural parole of the basis of adverse reports recorded by the Senior Superintendent of Police/District Magistrate, Patiala, who expressed an apprehension of breach of peace. 6. Mr. Trikha, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited before me Bharpur Singh v. State of Haryana, 1991(1) Recent Criminal Reports 543 , wherein it is held that furlough could not be refused to the petitioner on the basis that on previous occasion he had committed an offence while being on furlough in other case. In that case also, the detenu when on parole had committed another murder.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the view that agricultural parole in this case could be denied to the detenu petitioner only if he had violated the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, wherein it is provided that no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act if, on the repot of the District Magistrate, the State Government or any officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State Government or the maintenance of public order. Neither there is any such evidence brought before me nor any averment has been made in the written statement filed by the State that the release of the petitioner is likely to endanger the security of the State Government or the maintenance of public order.

In these circumstances, this petition is allowed and, thus, I grant six weeks agricultural parole to the petitioner subject to his furnishing adequate security/surety to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Sangrur.