Prem Nath vs State of Punjab and anr.

J. S. Sekhon, J.

In Criminal Writ Petition No. 1458 of 1989 disposed of vide order dated 10111989, it was directed that the Inspector General (Prisons) shall reconsider the case of the petitioner for furlough within a period of two months from that day after calling the report of the District Magistrate, Ludhiana. In case the case is not decided within the stipulated period, then the petitioner shall be released on furlough for three weeks on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. The petitioner then approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana for furnishing requisite bonds etc. but was apprised of the rejection of his application for furlough within the stipulated period. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition contending that the concerned authorities had wrongly rejected his petition for furlough.

In the return filed by Daulat Singh, Chief Welfare Officer, on behalf of the respondents, it is maintained in paras 3 and 6 as under :

"(3) Admitted to the extent that the detenu is eligible for the consideration of 3 weeks furlough case under section 4 of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. That the furlough case of the detenu was first time initiated on 19121984 by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana. This furlough case was filed because the father of the detenu applied for parole to Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab. The Superintendent, Central Jail Ludhiana again forwarded his furlough case on 18.2.86 which was rejected by Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab on 10686. Again 3 weeks furlough case initiated by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana on 6987 and sent to the District Magistrate, Delhi for obtaining the report on law and order point of view. Meanwhile the detenu filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 21. 9 of 1988 in this Hon''ble High Court. This Writ Petition was decided on 12788 with the direction that the furlough case of the detenue be decided by 30th September, 1988.

(6) That parole/furlough can only be granted to a convict if the District Magistrate concerned has no objection on his release. The favourable report of District Magistrate concerned is necessarily required for passing the release order. In this particular case the Dy. Commissioner of Police Central, District, Delhi did not recommend his furlough case. The report of District Magistrate, Ludhiana was not received in time but the furlough case of the detenu was to be decided by 10190 as per the directions of Hon''ble High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1458 of 1989. Therefore, in the absence of the report of District Magistrate, Ludhiana the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, considered and rejected it on 10.1.1990."

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The case of the petitioner for furlough was rejected on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central District, Delhi did not recommend the same and the report of the District Magistrate, Ludhiana was not received in time. During the pendency of this writ petition, report of the District Magistrate, Ludhiana was also called for who has simply stated that as the petitioner resides at Delhi and has not given particulars of his residence at Ludhiana, no report in this regard can be given.

The petitioner has committed the murder at Ludhiana and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. He hails from Delhi and is at present confined in Central Jail, Patiala.

Under these circumstances, the only relevant report of the local authorities regarding apprehension of breach of public peace is that of the Deputy Commissioner of Police Central District, Delhi.

The report of the Deputy Superintendent, Central District, Delhi as spelt out from reply of respondent No. 1 is quite vague as the requirement of Section 6 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 about apprehension of public peace or maintenance of public order or security of State cannot be spelt out therefrom. Such a vague report came under the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Bhagwat Saran & Ors. v. State of U.P. and others, 1983(1) CLR 504 in a case of premature release. It was observed by the apex Court 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 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."

In view of the above referred circumstances, the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab is directed to allow three weeks furlough to the convict within three weeks of this order on usual terms and conditions.

This Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Revision disposed of.