Manjit Singh vs State of Punjab and anr.

A. P. Chowdhri J.

Manjit Singh is undergoing life imprisonment following conviction in a murder case in District Jail, Bhatinda. He has undergone seven years sentence so far including the period of custody during the trial and the remissions earned by him. He never committed any jail sentence. His marriage is going to take place on 20.9.1978 with Bibi Paramjit Kaur d/o Gurmit Singh, resident of Tibba Tehsil Sultanpur, District Kapurthala. He made a request for temporary release on parole to the Superintendent Jail on July 11, 1988 but his prayer has neither been acceded to nor turned down. He then filed the present Criminal Writ Petition.

Notice was given to the respondents. Shri S.P. Soni Advocate appeared for the respondents. He was given a short adjournment in view of the urgency of the petition. He has not, however, been able to file the reply. He has received a short message from the Superintendent Jail, Bhatinda, to, the effect that the petitioner was not able to furnish proof regarding his forthcoming marriage, and therefore, no action was taken on his application. In the very nature of things when a prisoner is in custody, he is handicapped in producing evidence. All he can do is to make a prayer which makes it necessary for the authorities to hold enquiries promptly and to take a decision. It will be of no use if such applications for parole are kept pending indefinitely by merely calling upon the prisoners to furnish proof of the facts stated in the application. This will amount to denying the rights conferred by the Legislature on the prisoner. The Superintendent has clearly failed to perform what in law was clearly his duty.

The contention of the Learned counsel for the respondent is that the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 does not in terms provide for release of a prisoner on account of his own marriage. No doubt the Act does not expressly provide for such an eventuality but Clause (d) of Subclause 1 of the Section 3 of the Act lays down that parole may be granted if it is desirable to do so "for any other sufficient cause". Marriage of the person undergoing life imprisonment cannot be easily conceived. That seems to be the reason why the Legislature has not expressly provided for such an eventuality in the Act. However, there may be cases where the prisoner has served out substantial part of the imprisonment and is hoping to secure release in the near future and he may like to contract a marriage. In any case marriage of the prisoner himself appears to be sufficient cause justifying parole. The failure of authorities to dispose of the application within a reasonable time renders this action open to serious question. The petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be released on four weeks parole on his furnishing bail and bond to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, Dasti. Cri. Misc. No 248 of 1988 requires no further action. The same is disposed of accordingly.