Harjit Singh vs State of Haryana

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

Petitioner Harjit Singh is presently undergoing life imprisonment for offence punishable under sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. He prays for his release on furlough under section 4 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release Act), 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').

The relevant facts averred are that earlier the petitioner filed an application for his release on temporary furlough. It was rejected on 8th March, 1994. It has been pointed out that at that time in case the petitioner if released on furlough, there was likelihood of breach of peace. The petitioner came up for hearing before a Single Judge of this Court and it was recorded :

........It has also been urged that the petitioner had already been released temporarily on four occasions and had given no cause for offence and as such the apprehension of the authorities that there would be breach of peace, was without any basis. There is merit in the contention of the petitioner. Admittedly, he had been released on furlough four times earlier and there had been no complaint against him. Moreover, temporary release can be denied to a prisoner only if it affects the security of the State of the maintenance of public order. A mere possibility of breach of peace, which is simply a law and order problem does not come within these expressions. The present petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above within one month from the day a copy of this order is received by them, failing which he will be released on furlough for the period applied for."

In terms of the directions given by this Court the respondents again considered the request of the petitioner for his release on two weeks'' furlough. The said request was rejected recording that according to the report of the District Magistrate, Hisar, in case the petitioner is released on parole and there was danger to retain public peace. Even the District Magistrate had not recommended his case. In the face of aforesaid, his request was turned down.

The petitioner claims that his conduct inside the jail had been good and he has not committed any jail offence.

It has already been pointed out above that the petitioner had earlier been released on four occasions. Copy of the earlier reply filed in Criminal Misc. No. 5142 of 1994 on behalf of the respondents has also been appended with the petition. At that time it has also been averred by the respondents that the case of the petitioner is not recommended because of there being apprehension of breach of public peace. In the reply to the present application, as pointed out above, a similar plea is being offered. The said contention had earlier been rejected in the paragraph quoted above by this Court. It has been held that temporary release can be denied only if it affects the security of the State or maintenance of public order. The plea of the State that there was apprehension of breach of peace had been repelled. It is unfortunate that despite the decision of this Court the same plea has again been put forward. In normal circumstances it is for the respondents to consider such request but in the peculiar facts when the authorities did not earlier follow in letter and spirit the order passed by this Court and the grounds for detention which had earlier not been found to be tenable are being repeated, no useful purpose would be served by remitting the case to the respondents.

For the foregoing reasons, I allow the petition and direct the respondents to release the petitioner on furlough for two weeks subject to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Hisar on usual conditions as may have been prescribed.