Jagroop Singh vs State of Punjab and anr.

J.S. Sekhon, J.

The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, on 26101984. he has undergone about 3 years and 11 months actual sentence including the period of detention during trial besides having earned 2 years 11 months and 23 days remissions due to his good conducting in the jail. On the recommendation of the village Panchayat, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, had strongly recommended his case for 6 weeks parole for agricultural purposes but it was declined by the Inspector General of Prisons on the report of the District Magistrate, Sangrur, to the effect that local Police apprehended breach of peace at his hands if released on parole. The petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by filling writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or mandamus on the ground that he is being discriminated in the matter of allowing parole especially when his real brother convicted in the same case has already been granted such parole.

In the return filed by way of affidavit of Shri Dalip Singh, Chief Welfare Officer, it is contended that the granting of parole was rightly withheld on the report of the District Magistrate, Sangrur, as Chhota Singh, Sadha Singh, Jagroop Singh s/o Bant Singh and Jagroop Singh s/o Narain Singh residents of village Bhadurpur apprehended danger to their life at the hands of Jagroop Singh, petitioner if released on bail, on the ground that about 78 years back, on Diwali day, the petitioner bad murdered Gurdev Singh near the house of Chhota Singh and that they had figured as eyewitnesses against Jagroop Singh petitioner but he was ultimately acquitted in appeal by the High Court. It is further maintained that after his release, Jagroop Singh and his brother Bharpur Singh again murdered Uttam Singh of village Jhaneri who was living with the aforesaid Sadha Singh.

In supplementary return filed by way of affidavit of Dhanna Singh, Chief Probation Officer, it is further contended that according to the entries in Jambandi, the entire land stands in the name of Amar Singh, father of Jagroop Singh and Ajmer Singh, and thus, the granting of agricultural parole was rightly withheld.

None has appeared on behalf of the State of Punjab. Thus, there. is no option but to dispose of this matter in the absence of any representation by the State respondents. Mr. J. S. Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the relations of the deceased or enemies of the petitioner would not relish his release on parole besides maintaining that the parole was not declined by the State Government on the basis of petitioner being not owner of any land. He further maintained that the affidavit of Amar Singh clearly shows that he being an old man, his son Jagroop Singh used to look after the cultivation.

The law is well settled by the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, A.I.R. 1978 Supreme Court 851 that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit as otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may by the time it comes to Court, on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. In view of this legal position, the factum whether petitioner was owner of any land or not, being an extraneous consideration and not forming the basis of impugned order of rejection of parole is not of much consequence.

Regarding the report of the District Magistrate based upon the report of the S.S.P. Sangrur which in turn is based upon the report of A.S.I. Chanan Ram, it transpires that all the above referred persons whose statements were recorded by A.S.I. Chanan Ram are all those persons who figured as witnesses in the murder case of Gurdev Singh of their village against present petitioner wherein ultimately the petitioner was acquitted by the High Court. It is further alleged that after his acquittal, the petitioner along with his brother Bharpur Singh, murdered one Uttam Singh, resident of village Jhaneri and both of them were sentenced in that case. One Major Singh also received injuries in that incident. Aforesaid Major Singh had left the village out of fear from the accused party and joined the sect headed Baba Santa Singh. Jagroop Singh and Malkiat Singh, brothers of Major Singh apprehended danger to their life on the release of Jagroop Singh. Obviously, every relation of the deceased for the murder of whom the detenu is undergoing imprisonment for life would come forth in opposing such release on parole and thus, it cannot be said that the apprehension of the above referred persons is genuine especially when the brother of the petitioner who was also convicted with him for the above referred murder of Uttam Singh is already enjoying such parole.

Under these circumstances the withholding of the concession of parole by the State under Section 3(1)(c) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release), 1962 appears to be arbitrary.

For the foregoing reasons, the concerned authority i.e. Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh, is directed to reconsider the ease for release on parole of the petitioner after full application of mind but ignoring the above referred report of the District Magistrate within one month from the date of the passing of this order. It is ordered accordingly by accepting this petition.