Karambir Singh vs State of Haryana

M. L. Singhal, J.

This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India filed by Karambir Singh whereby he seeks to have direction to the respondents to release him on furlough under Section 4 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988.

Facts pleaded by him in support of his prayer are as follows :

He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide order dated 18.5.1990 in a murder case. He had remained in jail as an undertrial also. He has earned remissions to the tune of 18 months. He has undergone total imprisonment for 5 years and 3 months inclusive of remissions. He had applied to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambalarespondent No. 3 for allowing him furlough under Section 4 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 on 26.10.1993 to be enjoyed in village Balu, District Kaithal. His family consists of his mother who is old and ailing. She is putting up in a dwelling unit situated in village Balu, District Kaithal. There is no other male/adult member in the family who can undertake the carrying out of agricultural operations. His temporary release is eminently justified. Gram Panchayat of Balu has also issued certificate to this effect. Earlier also, he had been released on parole w.e.f. 18.8.1993 for 6 weeks for agricultural operations. During that period, he had committed no breach of peace. Gram Panchayat has certified that on earlier occasion, when he was released on parole, he had committed no breach of peace and further there is no adult male member in the family who could carry out agricultural operations. His conduct in the jail has been quite orderly and to the satisfaction of his superiors. He has not committed any jail offence. He has earned remissions to the tune of 1 year and 6 months. This is reward to him for having maintained orderly behaviour inside the jail. His case was sent by respondent No. 3 to the State of Haryana and District Magistrate, Kaithal i.e. respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and though a period of more than 4 months has elapsed, no decision has been taken so far. No decision has been taken on his prayer for the release on furlough. So far as his knowledge goes, his antecedents have been certified as satisfactory by the police. When he failed to secure furlough, he filed Cr.M.No. 4276M of 1994 for securing his release on furlough vide order dated 12.7.1994. That petition was allowed by this Court and direction was issued to the respondents to reconsider his case within a period of 2 months and in case no decision was taken, he would be released on furlough for a period of 3 months. After the decision of this Court on the said criminal miscellaneous petition, his case was sent to respondent No. 1 for consideration for his release on furlough vide order dated 6.10.1994. The State of Haryana rejected his case for release on furlough. No reason has been given by the State of Haryana for rejecting his case for his release on furlough. He had earlier been released on parole w.e.f. 18.8.1993 for a period of 6 weeks and during that period no breach of peace had taken place. Government has also issued instructions that in case the convict had earlier been released on parole/furlough, there is no need of sending his case to the District Magistrate. It appears that the State of Haryana has rejected his case for release on furlough acting on the report of the District Magistrate which should not have been asked for in view of the instructions dated 18.8.1977. In case his grant of furlough is refused to him, the object underlying letter dated 22.1.1962 issued by the Government would be defeated. Main object of the grant of parole/furlough to the various convicts is to enable them to continue contact with their family and deal with the family matters; to enable the inmates to maintain constructive hope and active interest in life. Rejection by the State of Haryana so far as his prayer for (convictprisoners) release on furlough is concerned is illegal and arbitrary. Respondents have opposed the prayer of the convictpetitioner for the grant of furlough to him on the ground that the District Magistrate had not recommended grant of furlough to him as there was apprehension of breach of peace at his hands. Grant of furlough was refused to him by respondent No. 1 in view of the report of the District Magistrate. According to Section 6 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act if the report of the District Magistrate in this behalf be that the release of the convictprisoner is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. Vide order dated 23.2.1993, he had availed parole concession from 18.3.1993 to 30.9.1993 for a period of 6 weeks granted by this Court in Cr.M.No. 11581M of 1992. His case for the grant of furlough was justifiably rejected by the State of Haryana on the report of the District Magistrate, Kaithal.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate for the State of Haryana and have gone through the record. When he had enjoyed parole on earlier occasion for 6 weeks'' duration in the year 1993, he did not commit any breach of peace. He surrendered before the Jail Authorities after the expiry of the period of his parole.

This time, the village panchayat of Balu has certified that if he is granted furlough there can be no apprehension of breach of peace at his hands and he would be able to attend his agricultural operations. Panchayat has certified that when he was on parole on earlier occasion in the year 1993, he did not commit any breach of peace. Report of the District Magistrate is too general and vague. District Magistrate has merely reported that he would endanger public peace and order if he is released on furlough. If there is apprehension of danger from him to the family of the person whose murder is said to have been committed by him that apprehension can be imaginary on their part. On this general and vague allegation, his prayer for the grant of furlough cannot be refused. In Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988(2) Recent Criminal Reports 548 , this Court observed that the apprehension of the District Authorities that there was danger to the complainant party in case convictprisoner was released on parole, does not fall either within the ambit of security of State or public order. It seems that opposition of the respondents that temporary release of the petitioner would give rise to apprehension of breach of peace is without any basis.

Furlough is a sort of reward to the prisoner for having maintained orderly behaviour inside the jail as furlough is counted when the sentence which the prisoner has undergone is to be calculated.

Since, the petitioner has maintained orderly behaviour during all this period and he did not commit any breach of peace when he was released on parole earlier, I think he should be given some incentive so that not only he but also other prisoners maintain orderly behaviour in jail and do not commit any breach of peace when they are released on parole.

In view of what has been discussed above, this criminal miscellaneous petition moved by Karambir Singh is accepted and the respondents are directed to release the petitioners on 2 weeks'' furlough on his executing personal bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Kaithal. He will surrender in jail after the period of furlough is over. Furlough will commence when he is released by the Jail Authorities in pursuance to this order. Petition stands disposed of.