Pawan Kumar vs State of Punjab and others

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

Petitioner''s counsel contends that the petitioner was convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code on July 15, 1993. He was arrested on December 21, 1991. Uptill the date of the petition, he has undergone actual sentence of 1 year 4 months and 21 days and has earned remissions of 1 year and 5 months. Thus, under section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, he is entitled to be released on parole for house repairs. He is not convicted of any jail offence. Hence it is prayed that he be released on parole for four weeks to effect repairs in his residential house in his native village. Alongwith the petition, he has filed affidavit of Lajya Devi and certificate of Gram Panchayat Meda Majra P.O. Partap Nagar, Ropar, dated November 26, 1994, wherein his release on parole is recommended.

In their short reply, the respondents have opposed the prayer alleging that the petitioner''s house is in good condition. It does not require any repairs. Moreover the witnesses who gave evidence against the petitioner apprehend danger on his release on parole. Considering these facts, the local police and the District Magistrate have not recommended his release on parole.

Under section 6 of the aforesaid Act, parole can be refused if the petitioner''s release is likely to endanger the security of the State. The petitioner''s prayer for parole was rejected on the ground that his residential house needs no repairs and further the witnesses who were examined in the sessions case, in which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, apprehend danger at his hands on his release on parole. This alleged apprehension does not fall within the precincts of danger to public peace and order. The panchayat of the village has recommended his release mentioning that there will be no danger to public peace if he is released on parole. No doubt, he is convicted under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, but he is not writtenoff citizen of the country. He still has social obligations. Petitioner''s mother has deposed in her affidavit that her house is in a bad condition. It immediately requires repairs. There is no other member in the family capable to effect these repairs. Even the panchayat has recommended that the condition of the petitioner''s house is deplorable and it requires urgent repairs. The local police has simply mentioned that the petitioner''s house is in good condition and does not require repairs. On April 28, 1995, AAG Punjab stated that he will get a certificate from the Tehsildar of the area about the condition of the petitioner''s house, but no such certificate was submitted. Only the inhabitants of the house know whether the house requires repairs or not. The socalled apprehension has no bearing. The approach of the authorities in rejecting the petitioner''s prayer seems to be highly arbitrary unjust and unfair. The petitioner has not committed any jail offence as well. No adverse report is submitted against him from the jail.

In this view of the matter, the petitioner''s prayer seems to be genuine. The order dated November 28, 1994, of the InspectorGeneral of Prisons, Punjab, refusing prayer for petitioner''s release on houserepair parole is hereby set aside, as being without any basis. The petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner temporarily on house repair parole for four weeks, subject to his furnishing security/surety to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Ropar. After the expiry of the parole period, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned authorities.