Jasbir Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

Shri Jasbir Singh son of Sohan Singh has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer that he be released on agricultural parole for a period of six weeks in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(1)(c) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 and the case set up by the petitioner is that he is serving sentence of five years after his conviction in a case FIR No. 3 of 1995 registered under Sections 4/5 Explosive Substances Act, and Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the TADA Act and that he has undergone his major portion of sentence and only ten months are left for completion of his sentence. He has moved an application for his release on agricultural parole which has been ultimately declined to him vide order dated 21.12.1998 on the ground that it has been reported by the District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent of Police that the residents of the village had shown their apprehension of fear in the event of the release of the detenu. Further it has been averred that the petitioner has been sentenced for five years and to pay to fine of Rs. 2,000/ under the TADA Act and thirdly in view of the decision of the High Court in Crl. Misc. No. 19891M of 1994, the petitioner is entitled to parole.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The point which survives for determination is that when a person has been convicted in a case under section 5 of the TADA whether such a person can be uniformly deprived of the benefit contained in Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 and the ancillary point for determination would be whether agricultural parole can be deprived to a person about whom the administration expresses an opinion that in the event of release of such person there will be apprehension of fear. Section 6(2) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, lays down that no prisoner shall be entitled to release under this Act if, on the report of District Magistrate, where consultation with whom is necessary, the State Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order. Thus a reading of the above provision would show that a person can be deprived of parole only if his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the State before rejecting the case of a prisoner for parole is bound to formulate an opinion that since the prisoner has been convicted under TADA, is no ground to reject the case of the prisoner for agricultural parole or any other parole to which he is entitled as per provisions of Section 3 of the said Act. Shri Navkiran Singh also submitted that the order Annexure P.1 would show that the State Government has made a sweeping remark in the impugned order by stating that since the prisoner has been convicted in a TADA case undergoing imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs. 2,000/, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of parole. Moreover, the State has not shown any basis how the ultimate release of the petitioner will become source of fear to the covillagers. Learned counsel also submitted and drew my attention to the judgment of this court dated 29.2.1996 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 12645M of 1995, Raj Pal v. State of Punjab and submitted that the said judgment is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. On the contrary contention of the State is that since the petitioner has been convicted in a TADA case, therefore, his conviction itself will fall within Section 6(ii) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 and this gives right to the State Government to reject the case of parole of the prisoners who have been convicted under the provisions of TADA.

I have considered the submission raised by the learned counsel for the parties and am of the view that the order Annexure P.1 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. State is not such a weak organ of the Constitution that in the event of the release of one individual it cannot tame the activity of a person. It has not been shown in the impugned order Annexure P.1 how the petitioner will become a source of fear to the covillagers in the event of his release. There is not an iota of evidence which has been shown in support of Annexure P.1 that petitioner had hurled threats to his covillagers or any body else so that in the event of his ultimately release he became a problem in the maintenance of the public order. Without any basis, it is difficult for this court to hold that the petitioner would become a source of fear for his covillagers. Even if he is a source of fear as stated by the Government in the impugned order, still it cannot be equated that the petitioner will create a problem for the maintenance of the public order which is a stronger term as compared "apprehension" of fear on release.

With regard as to whether uniform criteria can be laid down "as and when a person is convicted under TADA and his case is rejected under section 6 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962", in this regard it can be said that the case of a prisoner for parole can only be rejected if the Government comes to the conclusion that ultimately release of a person is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order. The order must clearly reflect the mind of the State as to how it has reached to this particular conclusion. Conviction under TADA can be under Sections 3, 4 or 5 of the Act. Again there are several categories as to how offences under sections 3, 4 and 5 are constituted. A person may be in possession of one particular fire arm or he may be in possession of one Kilogram of RDX or other explosive substances. The possession of these incriminating articles per se will not bring the case of the State that by these acts of an individual it has endangered security of the State or maintenance of the public order. The State before declining the request of the prisoner under section 6(ii) of the Act must satisfy the reasons that on account of particular past behaviour of the prisoner by virtue of his conviction either under the TADA or any other Act, the State feels that in the event of release of such person, he will become threat to the security of the State or maintenance of the public order. The uniform covenant cannot be introduced in the orders rejecting the case an individual for parole or furlough by taking shelter of the provisions of a particular act. In the present case order Annexure P.1 is totally barren and it does not reflect of the mind of the State how in the event of the release of the petitioner on parole, he will become a threat to the security of the State or maintenance of the public order. On the contrary, the stand of the State as reflected in Annexure P.1 is that since the petitioner has been convicted in a TADA case, therefore, he is not entitled to parole. Such a sweeping criteria adopted by the State cannot be sustained in the eyes of law in view of Section 6(ii) of the Act and also in view of constitutional rights which have been given to an individual. In this view of the matter, the impugned order Annexure P.1 stands quashed and directions are given to the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for a period of four weeks provided the petitioner furnished bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Jalandhar who shall order for the release of the petitioner on accepting bail bond and surety bond. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during the period of parole and he shall avail the parole only for the purpose it was applied for. In case the petitioner violates any term or condition of the bail bond it will open to the State to take the petitioner into custody. The petition stands allowed.