Mani Ram vs State of Haryana through the Director General of Prisons

Swatanter Kumar, J. (Oral)

Notice.

Mr. J.S. Ahlawat, appearing for the Staterespondents, accepts notice. Copy of the petition has been furnished to him.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was convicted to undergo life imprisonment for an offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, on 25.1.1995. The petitioner made a request for his release on temporary parole in connection with agricultural purposes, as required under Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners'' (Temporary Release) Act, 1988. This request was recommended by the Jail Superintendent on 5.2.1996. This request, was however, rejected by the respondents vide order dated 30.9.1996. The order passed by the respondents reads as under :

"In reference to letter No. 180 dated 5.2.1996 on the subject cited above of the Superintendent, Distt. Jail, Gurgaon, a copy of which has been endorsed to you.

It being the first parole case of convict, an enquiry has been got conducted from the Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon as per rules. The Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon has reported after conducting enquiry that if this conduct (sicconvict) is released on parole, then any serious crime can be (sic) happened (sichappen). Therefore, the parole case of the convict is not recommended and the temporary release of convict Mani Ram S/o Phul Kunwar @ Phul Kumar for agricultural purpose is not recommended."

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that mere apprehension unsupported by any proper documentary or other evidence, cannot be made basis of declining the request of the petitioner by the respondents. He further submits that the case of the petitioner was fully supported by the certificate issued by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Soondh (P.S. Tauru, District Gurgaon), where it was specifically stated that there was no likelihood of any apprehension of breach of peace in case the petitioner is released on parole. Copy of the said certificate is annexed to this petition as Annexure P2.

Learned State counsel submits that the order, Annexure P1 is in consonance with the settled principles of Law and the Administration has the right to reject the request of the detenu.

The contention of the learned State counsel is correct to the extent that it is primarily for the Administration to accept or reject the request of the detenu for release on temporary parole. What the learned counsel for the respondent has not appreciated is that the basic requirement for passing such order is that there should be proper application of mind. The reason for declining such a request of the detenu should be one which is postulated under Section 6 of the Act. Once the reason is vague, indefinite and unsupported by any evidence, such order cannot be permitted to stand the scrutiny of Law.

The grounds stated for rejecting the request of the petitioner in the present case were held to be not valid reasons by a judgment of this Court in the case of Tejinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 1992(3) Recent C.R. 562, upon considering the report of Authorities. It was held :

"8. As is discernible from a reading of Annexure R1 neither in the Police Report nor in the report of the District Magistrate, it is anywhere written that the District Magistrate is satisfied that the release of the petitioner is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, (sic) dated May 21, 1992, passed by the Additional Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh, declining the request of the petitioner for his temporary release on agricultural parole that "According to the report of the District Magistrate, Hissar, if convict Tejinder Singh son of Darshan Singh is released on parole there can be apprehension of breach of public peace." It means even the mention of apprehension of breach of public peace in the abovesaid order is without any basis. The approach of the Authority rejecting the request of the petitioner seems to be highly arbitrary, unjust and unfair."

Further for the detailed reasons given by this Court in Rajpal v. State of Haryana etc. cetera, (Criminal Misc. No. 18296M/1996 decided on 7.10.1996) the impugned order Annexure P1 dated 30.9.1996) is quashed. The petitioner is directed to be released on temporary parole for agricultural purposes for a period of four weeks from the date of his release. The petitioner would be released by the District Magistrate, Gurgaon, subject to such terms and conditions as he may deem necessary. If the petitioner does not surrender after the expiry of period of his release, the State shall be at liberty to apprehend him without any further reference from this Court.