Gurnam Singh vs State of Punjab

Harphul Singh Brar, J.

This is a petition filed by the detenu Petitioner under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for issuance of a direction to the respondents for temporarily releasing him on parole in order to enable him to perform agricultural operations in his agricultural fields in the village, for a period of six weeks.

It is averred in the petition that the Petitioner was convicted under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Faridkot, vide order passed in December, 1987. Since then, he has been undergoing imprisonment for life in District Jail, Faridkot, with very satisfactory conduct and `behaviour.'' He has been never punished for any jail offence. He was never involved in any civil or criminal litigation except the present offence. He submits that there is no other able member in the family who can help in performing agricultural activities in the fields and that he fulfils all the requirements for his release on parole for agricultural purposes for six weeks and is, thus, entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (the Act, for short).

The learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the fact that the parole case, of the petitioner was initiated by respondent No. 2 and was duly recommended by him to District Magistrate, a copy of which was also endorsed to the Inspector General or, Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh, respondent No. 1, who had rejected the said case vide his order, dated April 29, 1992. She states that the impugned order having been passed without following the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, is bad in law and must be quashed on this score alone.

Written statement by way of an affidavit has been filed by Daulat Singh, Chief Welfare Officer, Office of the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh, on behalf of the respondents. Some of its highlights may be examined. The factual position stated by the petitioner in the petition has not been controverted in the written statement, though it is mentioned therein that the parole case of the petitioner has been rejected due to apprehension on breach of peace on the basis of the report of the District Magistrate, Faridkot, which reads as under :

"The Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot on verification has reported that statements of prominent persons of the Mohalla, complainant party and witnesses have been recorded, who have expressed danger to their lives and property. So keeping in view the whole situation, and maintenance of public peace and order, he has not recommended release on parole to this prisoner.

I agree with above report of Senior Superintendent of Police and release on parole to the prisoner is not recommended.

Sd/ for District Magistrate, Faridkot."

A perusal of the reply also reveals that the main and, in fact, the only ground for rejection of parole to the petitioner is that the prominent persons of the Mohalla, complainant party, and witnesses apprehend danger to their lives and property which is not a good ground to deny the benefit of parole in question to the petitioner. However, the petitioner could be denied parole only if his act was covered within the meaning of section 6 of the Act. It reads as follows :

"Prisoners not entitled to be released in certain cases. 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 authorisied 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."

The impugned order, in my considered view, does not stand the scrutiny of the provisions of section 6 of the Act which emphasise that no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under the Act if, his release is likely to endanger the security of the State Government or the maintenance of public order, and not merely apprehension of danger to the lives and property of the prominent persons of the Mohalla, complainant party or witnesses. It is not out of place to mention here that the opposite party will always oppose, and that too strongly, the release of the petitioner on parole, which, should not be the basis for rejection of parole to him. The District Magistrate should have made an objective (sic) into the matter.

It is neither alleged anywhere nor any fact has been brought to my notice to the effect that the release of the detenu on parole for agricultural purposes is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. In these circumstances, the impugned order, dated April 29, 1992 is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be released on agricultural parole for six weeks, to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Faridkot.

This petition is disposed of in the above said terms.