Mir Singh vs State of Haryana

A.P. Chowdhri, J.

Mir Singh, petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment following his conviction in a murder case. He owns about four ares of land and he applied of his release on parole under Sections 3(1)(c) and 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners'' (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, inter alia for agricultural operations at village Dhani Bhakran, Police Station Behal, District Bhiwani. Petitioner''s father is too old to undertake agricultural operations. His brother is serving in the Indian Army and the other brother has already died. Family of the deceased''s brother is also depended on the petitioner. Petitioner''s own children are minor. The land being the main source of income, it was the primary duty of the petitioner to undertake agricultural operations. Ultimately, his application was turned down by the releasing authority leading to filling of the present petition.

A detailed reply has been filed by Sh. Randhir Singh, Superintendent, District Jail, Bhiwani, on behalf of the respondents.

A perusal of the reply shows that the conduct of the petitioner in the Jail had been good. The application for his release on parole was inquired into by Ram Kumar Head Constable, who was informed by Gopal Sihnh, Sarpanch of the village that there was party faction in the village and, therefore, they did not approve of Mir Singh''s coming to the village on parole.

The above information was taken by the Head Constable to mean that in case the petitioner came to the village on being released on parole "some serious event may happen". The above report was endorsed by the State House Officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police. On this basis (sic) appeal of the petitioner. The releasing authority, acting on the report of the District Magistrate turned down the petition. I have not been shown any other record or material to support the conclusion drawn by the Head Constable, which was endorsed upto to level of the releasing authority.

Two facts stand out very prominently, (i) that the petitioner''s conduct in the jail had been free from any blame, and (ii) that the petitioner had been admittedly released on parole earlier and he gave no cause of complaint. To say that there was party faction in the village by itself did not mean that the faction opposed to the petitioner was bent upon precipitating the situation. The same could be said with regard to the faction of the petitioner himself. It may be difficult to find a substantial number of villages in our country where there are no party factions at all. The inference, therefore, drawn by the Head Constable which is the real basis for turning down the present prayer does not in my view furnish any sufficient reason why the prayer should have been turned down.

After hearing both the learned Counsel and in view of what has been stated above, the petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on six week''s parole on his furnishing bond and surety to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Bhiwani.