Patter Singh vs State of Haryana and ors.

J. S. Sekhon, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has undergone more than 6 years 7 months and 20 days of actual sentence and it is not disputed that his conduct in the jail has been good throughout. The petitioner applied for six weeks parole for agricultural purposes under clause 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, which was declined by the Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana, on, the report Annexure R/1 of the District Magistrate, Jind, to the effect that the Superintendent of Police, find, has not recommended the release on parole of the said convict. Through this writ petition for habeas corpus the petitioner seeks direction that the concerned authorities may be directed to release him on parole for agricultural purposes as it has been withheld on vague report of the District Magistrate regarding apprehension of the breach of public peace.

In the return filed by Shri Hawa Singh, Superintendent, Central Jail, Hissar, it is maintained that a person cannot claim the release on parole as a matter of right. He relied upon Amar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1984(1) CLR 547. It is, however, admitted that the conduct of the prisoner remained good throughout in the jail but explained that the case for release on parole for agricultural purposes was declined by the Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana on the ground of apprehension of breach of public peace as reported by the District Magistrate, Jind, vide report Annexure R/1.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

There is no force in the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this petition of this writ petition. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court has all the powers to examine whether the concerned authorities are passing the relevant orders strictly under the four corners of the law and rules and regulations. If need be, this Court has the powers to issue a writ of mandamus after coming to the conclusion that the authorities are not observing principles of law or rules and regulations in passing the impugned orders.

The report Annexure R/1 of the District Magistrate reads as under :

"2. The enquiry regarding parole of convict cited above was conducted through the Superintendent of Police, Jind. The Superintendent of Police, Jind has not recommended the release on parole of the said convict."

"3. I agree with the report of the Superintendent of Police. Jind. Thus according to the report of Superintendent of Police, Jind, the parole release of convict is not recommended. The application of the convict and other papers in original are enclosed herewith.

On the basis of this report, the Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana, had rejected the case of the petitioner for release him on parole vide order Annexure R/2. The relevant portion of the same in para 2 reads as under :

"In accordance with the report of the District Magistrate, if, convict Patter Singh son of Shadi is released on parole then there is an apprehension of breach of public peace. Thus keeping in view of the report, the application of convict for parole is rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana, after consideration. The above convict may be informed about this decision."

A bare perusal of the report of the District Magistrate leaves no doubt that the case of release on parole of the convict was not recommended by the District Magistrate on the vague report of the Superintendent of Police, Jind. In the return filed by the respondents, it is not explained as to what were the precise facts and circumstances which resulted in not recommending the case of release of the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Jind. In the report of the District Magistrate, it is not even mentioned that the release of the petitioner on parole would result in breach of public peace or endanger the security of the State as envisaged under Section 6 of the said Act.

Thus, under these circumstances, the release of the petitioner on parole appears to have been withheld by the authorities on the vague report regarding apprehension of the breach of public peace which had certainly resulted in discrimination and arbitrariness because other prisoners similarly situated are being granted the concession of release on parole. The apex Court in Bhagwat Saran and others v. State of U.P. and others, 1983(1) CLR 504, has dealt with such vague report of the local authorities regarding apprehension of breach of public peace as under :

"After hearing counsel on either side and considering the affidavit of the respondents filed herein we are satisfied that it is a case where the committee''s recommendations should have been accepted by the Government. The committee had recommended the release of these prisoners after taking into consideration the behaviour inside the jail as well as other factors. The only ground given by the State in the counter affidavit is that "after considering their cases sympathetically, keeping in view of the law and order situation they cannot be released". A bald statement like that without any attempt to indicate how law and order is likely to be adversely affected by their release cannot be accepted. In fact there are no reasons why recommendations could not be accepted. We direct that the petitioners be released forthwith."

For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is directed to be released on four weeks parole for agricultural purposes on furnishing requisite security bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Jind and an undertaking to surrender before the jail authorities after expiry of the parole period. This petition stands allowed accordingly.