Lakhvir Singh vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

The petitioner has moved this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a direction to the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 6 weeks to enable him to perform agricultural operations in his agricultural land in village Mahima Sarja, Police Station Nahianwala, Tehsil and District Bathinda (Punjab). The petitioner was tried on the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted by the trial Judge on 28.9.1982. The case of parole for agricultural purposes was initiated by respondent No. 2, Superintendent, Central Jail Bathinda and respondent No. 1, Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh on 20.3.1995. Respondent No. 1, however, rejected the case of release of parole and the petitioner was informed about it, in the 3rd week of May, 1995, by respondent No. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that as far his knowledge is concerned, his parole case was rejected on the ground that if he released on parole, there will be apprehension of breach of peace and the opposite party and the witnesses who were examined at the trial by the accused will apprehend of danger from the petitioner while on parole. The contention of the petitioner is that under Section 6 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 inter alia provides that the prisoners are not entitled to get benefit of the Act. In case where the State Government order any Officer authorised by the State Government is satisfied that the release of the petitioner will endager the security of the State or maintenance of the public order. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the expression used under Section 6 of the Act do not cover the ground on which the parole of the petitioner has been rejected. Consequently, it has been prayed that the petitioner who is not accused of committing any jail offence while being locked in jail is entitled to be released on parole for agricultural purposes under the said Act.

Notice of motion was issued to the respondents, who put in appearance and filed reply by way of affidavit of Mr. Labh Singh alias Lal Shah, Chief Probation Officer, Office of the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, deposing inter alia as under :

"Six weeks parole case of the petitioner for the agricultural operation was initiated by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bhatinda vide his letter No. 951/53 dated 20.3.95 and in this regard a report on law and order situation was called for from the District Magistrate, Bhatinda who after making due verification through the Senior Superintendent of Police had not recommended the case of the petitioner on the ground that there is likelihood of breach of peace if the petitioner is released on parole. The aggrieved party as well as witnesses apprehend danger from him. Keeping in view the adverse report of the District Magistrate, Bhatinda, the case for release on parole of the petitioner was rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, vide letter No. 3840 dated 19.6.1995 and the petitioner was informed accordingly through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bhatinda."

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. The ground of rejection referred to in the reply filed by respondents 1 and 2 came up for consideration before a learned Singh Judge of this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 10546M of 1994 (Teja Singh v. State of Punjab and another) decided on 15.9.1994 wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court held as under :

"Under Section 6 of the Act, temporary release can be denied to a prisoner only in the event that his release would endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. The mere apprehension of some danger to the complainant party does not fall within either of the two expressions."

The said view was followed in yet another Crl. Misc. No. 14876M of 1994 (Raj Kumar alias Raju son of Sardari Lal v. State of Punjab and another).

It will thus be seen that the objection taken by the respondent authorities for the grant of parole is not found covered squarely by the expression "endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of Public JUDGMENT". The apprehension that in case the prisoner is released on probation, there was likelihood of apprehension of breach of peace or that complainant party and his witnesses and apprehended some danger, will not fall expression "endanger the security of the State of maintenance of public order". That being so, the grounds of rejection of parole taken by respondent No. 1 for rejecting the case of parole of the petitioner cannot be said to be valid and legal. Apart from it, there is no such case of the respondents that the petitionerprisoner is guilty of any such conduct while inside jail which may disentitle him to the concession of parole. It is also worth mentioning that the petitioner remained on bail after conviction with effect from 20.3.1984 to 21.4.1984 and during this period also he has not indulged in any subversive activity.

In view of the afore going discussion, the petitionerprisoner deserves to be admitted to parole for a period of four weeks and the respondents are directed to release him on parole for a period of 4 weeks subject to his furnishing necessary bonds to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Bhatinda. During the period of parole, the petitioner shall report at the concerned Police Station at least once in a fortnight and will not indulge in any subverse activity particularly adverse to the complainant party and his witnesses. After the expiry of period of parole, the petitioner shall appear before the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, Bathinda for being sent to jail to serve out the remaining sentence. Dasti on payment.