Pal Dass vs State of Punjab

P.K. Jain, J.

Pal Dass petitioner had filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking his temporary release on parole for 4 weeks for house repair under Section 3(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred to as ''the Act'').

The petitioner was convicted for offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay certain amount of fine by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide his judgment dated 28.1.1994. The petitioner who is undergoing sentence in District Jail, Sangrur, applied for his temporary release on parole for house repair which request has been turned down by the authorities by letter dated 26.4.1994 on the ground that the aggrieved party as well as the witnesses apprehend danger from the petitioner on his release and there is likelihood of breach of peace in the village if the petitioner is released on parole.

It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner can be released on parole for a period of 4 weeks for the repair of his damaged house provided other conditions given are fulfilled. It is also not disputed that the petitioner fulfills other conditions also which have been laid down in the aforesaid Act. The only reason given by the authorities to reject the request of the petitioner is that there is likelihood of apprehension of breach of peace on release of the petitioner on parole and that the aggrieved party and the witnesses also apprehend danger from the petitioner if he is released on parole.

Section 6 of the Act, which is relevant in this context, reads as under :

"Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 3 and 4, no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act if, on the report of the District Magistrate, the State Government or any officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State Government or the maintenance of public order."

It is apparent from the aforesaid provision that if on the report of the District Magistrate, the State Government or any officer so authorised is satisfied that release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of the public order then such a request necessarily has to be turned down. In the present case the request is being opposed on the ground that there is apprehension of breach of peace if the petitioner is released on parole. The particulars given in support of this opposition are that the aggrieved party and the witnesses apprehend danger from the petitioner if he is released on parole. In my considered view, this is no reason within the ambit of Section 6 of the Act for opposing the request of the petitioner for his temporary release on parole for house repair. It is important to note that his case has been recommended by two Panches of the Nagar Panchayat Sohna, ExSarpanch, Lambardar and the Chowkidar of the concerned village. It is specifically mentioned in the Panchnama issued by the said Panchayat that the release of the petitioner would be no danger for the disturbance of the peace in the village.

As a result of the reasons given above, this petition is allowed. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner be released on four weeks'' parole for the repair of his house on usual terms to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Sangrur.