Hari Singh vs State of Punjab

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.

During the annual inspection of the courts located in Sessions Division, Bhatinda, M. R. Agnihotri, J. visited the Central Jail, Bhatinda on 2931990 when Hari Singh petitioner handed over the petition to the said Judge complaining that he is undergoing imprisonment for life in the jail and his conduct has been good throughout and that he had by now undergone 81/2 years actual sentence but had not availed of any parole or furlough because whenever the jail authorities forwarded his case to the concerned authorities it was rejected on the basis of the report of the local police. This application was forwarded to this Court and treated as criminal writ petition.

On notice, Shri Daulat Singh, Chief Welfare Officer on behalf of the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab had filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda on 2711982 and that the conduct of the prisoner in the jail had been satisfactory throughout. It is further mentioned that the parole/furlough cases of the petitioner were initiated by the replying respondent as and when the petitioner was eligible but the same were declined by the Government on receipt of adverse report from the District authorities, because as per rules report of the District authorities is necessary for grant of first parole or furlough.

As the return filed by the respondent was vague regarding the report of the local authorities, the learned counsel for the State has produced the original record at the asking of the Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondentState besides perusing the original record.

The perusal of the report dated 2151988 of ASI Sarwan Singh Incharge of Police Post, Jhunir, District Bhatinda reveals that the petitioner had committed the murder of his younger brother besides having caused injuries to Kulwant Kaur, widow of his brother. It is further mentioned that the Panchayat of the village had no objection to the release of the petitioner on parole but Kulwant Kaur and Jit Singh witnesses of the parent case had shown apprehension of breach of peace at the instance of the detenu if released on parole. This report was supported by the Senior Superintendent of Police. Bhatinda vide his endorsement dated 2161988 and forwarded to the District Magistrate, Bhatinda. The District Magistrate, in turn, had supported the same and sent it to the Inspector General of Prisons.

The relations of the deceased or the witnesses figuring in the parent murder case will not always relish the release of the accusedpetitioner on parole or furlough on the basis of suspicion that the accused must be feeling sore against them due to their figuring as eyewitnesses in the murder case which resulted in his conviction. Thus, even if the entire report of the local police is taken to be true, it cannot be said that the allegations will fall within the mischief of section 6 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, because according to the provisions of that section, a prisoner can be declined the concession of parole/furlough if there is likelihood of endangering the security of the State or maintenance of public order. Such a vague report came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhagwat Saran and others v. State of U.P. and others, 1983(1) CLR 504. In that case, the Supreme Court had held as under :

"After hearing counsel on either side and considering the affidavit of the respondents filed herein we are satisfied that it is a case where the Committee''s recommendations should have been accepted by the Government. The Committee had recommended the release of these prisoners after taking into consideration the behaviour inside the jail as well as other factors. The only ground given by the State in the counter affidavit is that "after considering their cases sympathetically, keeping in view the law and order situation they cannot be released." A bald statement like that without any attempt to indicate how law and order is likely to be adversely affected by their release cannot be accepted. In fact there are no reasons why recommendations could not be accepted. We direct that the petitioners be released forthwith.

For the foregoing reasons, it appears that the State Government had arbitrarily withheld the granting of parole/furlough to the petitioner. Consequently by allowing this writ petition, the Superintendent Central Jail, Bhatinda is directed to initiate within 15 days of this order the case of release of the petitioner on parole if his conduct in the prison has remained good till now. Thereafter, the State Government shall decide this matter in the light of the decision of this Court within one month of receipt thereof.

A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bhatinda as well as to the Home Secretary to Government, Punjab, for ensuring the requisite action.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.