Jaspal Singh vs State of Haryana

R.S. Mongia, J. (Oral)

The petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment in Central Jail, Ambala, for having been convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Admittedly he has undergone almost five years of imprisonment. He applied to the Superintendent Central Jail, Ambalarespondent3 for his temporary release of furlough under Section 4 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is further the admitted case of the parties that the Superintendent, Central Jail had recommended the temporary release of the petitioner on furlough. However, the Additional Director General (P) Haryana, Chandigarh on the basis of a report of District Magistrate, Kurukshetra, informed the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala that if the petitioner is released on furlough, that would endanger the public peace and order and on this basis the District Magistrate had not recommended the release of the petitioner on furlough. Relying on this report of the District Magistrate, the Additional Director General (P) Haryana, Chandigarh declined the request of the petitioner for being released temporarily on furlough. It may be observed here that the petitioner had enjoyed parole w.e.f. Feb. 13, 1993 to March 14, 1993.

This petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to release the petitioner temporarily on furlough under Section 4 of the Act.

Reply has been filed and the stand taken is that because of the report of the District Magistrate, Kurukshetra, to which a reference has already been made above, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed in this petition.

On January 5, 1994, I had adjourned this case to enable the respondents counsel to appraise this Court regarding the material on the basis of which the District Magistrate had given his report (Annexure R.1 to the written statement) which is to the effect that if the petitioner is released on furlough it will endanger the public peace and order. Learned counsel for the respondents informed that nobody has come from the concerned quarter to give him instructions regarding the query put by me in my last order dated January 5, 1994.

Section 4 of the Act reads as under :

"4. (1) The State Government or any other officer authorised by it in this behalf may, in consultation with such other officer as may be appointed by the State Government, by notification, and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily, on furlough, ay prisoner who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than four years and who

(a) has, immediately before the date of his temporary release, undergone, continuous imprisonment for a period of three years, inclusive of the prosecution detention, if any ;

(b) has not during such period committed any jail offence (except an offence punished by a warning) and has earned at least three annual good conduct remissions :

Provided that nothing herein shall apply to a prisoner who

(i) is a habitual offender as defined in subsection (3) of Section 2 of Punjab Habitual Offenders (Control and Reform) Act, 1952 ; or

(ii) has been convicted of dacoity or such other offence as the State Government may, by notification, specify.

(2) The period of furlough for which a prisoner is eligible under subsection (1) shall be three weeks during the first year of his release and two weeks during each successive year thereafter.

(3) Subject to the provisions of clause (d) of subsection (3) of Section 8 the period of release referred to in subsection (1) shall count towards the total period of the sentence undergone by a prisoner."

In the present case, it is not disputed that the petitioner is complying with the conditions laid down in Section 4 of the Act for being released on furlough. The Superintendent of Jail, who is the man on the spot, is really the best judge to recommend the case of a particular prisoner for his temporary release. The District Magistrate, of course, can opine otherwise, but that opinion has to be based on some material. As observed above, the petitioner enjoyed parole from Feb 13, 1993 to March 14, 1993 and there is nothing that while on parole, he had misbehaved to disentitle him for being released on furlough. Further the petitioner remained behind the bars after enjoying the parole and there is no material forthcoming as to on what basis the District Magistrate opined that if the petitioner is released on furlough that will endanger the public peace and order.

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

Copy of this order may be given dasti on payment.

This petition stands disposed of.