Ram Kalan vs State of Haryana and another

Harphul Singh Brar, J.

This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for issuance of directions to the respondents to release him temporarily on furlough for two weeks under Section 4 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act).

It is stated in the petition that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Session Judge, Hissar, on May 1, 1985 though he is in jail since the day of his arrest and has undergone more than seven years actual sentence. He claims to have availed of seven paroles and furlough on several occasions peacefully and his conduct inside the jail as well as outside while on parole/furlough had remained good and satisfactory.

The petitioner convict avers in the petition that he applied for grant of furlough for two seeks under Section 4 of the Act and his case for grant of furlough was duly recommended by the Superintendent, Centeral Jail, Hissar, respondent No. 2 after satisfying himself with the conduct of the petitioner, convict, to respondent No. 1. However, the Additional Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh, on the report of District Magistrate, Hissar, rejected the case of the petitioner to release him on furlough, as there could be an apprehension of breach of public peace if the petitioner was released on furlough. The petitioner has asserted in the petition that the case for grant of furlough to him has been recommended by the Municipal Commissioner, Hissar and supported by some residents of the locality.

Written statement has been filed by Raj Singh, Superintendent, Central Jail, Hissar, on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The averments made by the petitioner regarding his good conduct inside the jail as well as outside have not been denied in the written statement. It has, however, been stated in reply to Para 3 of the petition that the District Magistrate, Hissar, after making enquiry through the Police Department, did not recommend the furlough release case of the petitioner due to an apprehension of breach of public peace and on the basis of the report of the District Magistrate, the Additional Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh rejected the furlough release case of the petitioner vide No. 8392GlG5/R9 2/R 572 dated May 1, 1992. In reply to para 6 of the petition, it is submitted in the written statement, that the recommendations of the Municipal Commissioner, Hissar, attached with the petition as Annexure P2, have no value in the eye of law, being not a copy of any resolution having been passed in the matter.

As per the version of the petitioner, he seeks his temporary release on furlough for two weeks under Section 4 of the Act, relevant portion of which is extracted below :

"4. (1) The State Government of any other officer authorised by it in this behalf may, in consultation with such other officer as may be appointed by the State Government, by notification, and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be described release temporarily, on furlough, any prisoner who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than four years and who

(a) Has, immediately before the date of his temporary release, undergone continuous imprisonment for a period of three years, inclusive of the presentence detention, if any;

(b) has not during such period committed any jail offence (except an offence punished by a warning) and has earned atleast three annual good conduct remissions :

provided xx, xx, xx."

A bare reading of the provisions of section 4 of the Act makes it crystal clear that a prisoner who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than four years and who has undergone continuous imprisonment of three years immediately before the date of his temporary release; and who has not during the said period committed any jail offence (except an offence punished by a warning); and has also earned at least three annual good conduct remissions may be released temporarily, on furlough. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends with vehemence that the petitioner fulfils all the above conditions; inasmuch as he has undergone more than seven years actual sentence and had already availed of seven paroles and furlough on earlier occasions peacefully and that his conduct inside the jail as well as outside remained good and satisfactory while on parole/furlough.

Mr. P.S. Sullar, learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the respondent, however, submits that the relief of parole/furlough is not a matter of right and is not available to any prisoner who infringes the provisions of section 6 of the Act. Let us now examine the case of the petitioner from this angle. Section 6 of the Act reads thus :

"6. 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 an officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order."

I have perused Annexure RI, which is said to be a report of the District Magistrate, Hissar, with the help of the learned counsel. Annexure RI is reproduced as under :

"Respected Sir `Ram Kalan son of Hari Singh, Caste Jat of Kanari R/o Shiv Nagar, Hisar presently has been enquired through Satyavan, Naresh Sharma Vir Bhan and Dilbagh Singh R/o Shive Nagar, Hisar. The children of Ram Kalan are residing in Shive Nagar, Hisar and Ram Kalan is undergoing his sentence in District Jail, Hisar. Now Ram Kalan wants to construct his house. There is no objection to the neighbourers on the release of Ram Kalan on leave. Report is submitted. But the opposite party did not contact. It may be possible that the opposite party may have danger. Therefore, may not be sent on leave here.

Sd/ ASI

P.P.H.T. M/Hisar

Dt. 1.2.1992.

Respected Sir,

The enquiry was made through A.S.I. Balbir Singh Incharge PP/HTM regarding Parole of convict Ram Kalan son of Hari Singh R/o Kanari presently residing in Shiv Nagar, Hisar. This report is submitted for persual. There is danger to the opposite party on his coming on leave who can commit a serious crime at any time. His Parole release is not recommended. Report is submitted.

Sd/Incharge Officer,

P.S. City Hisar.

Dt. 19.2.1992.

No. 20 Parole/RO Dated 4.3.1992.

Forwarded in original to the District Magistrate, Hisar with the report that keeping in view the report of the local Police, the Parole leave of convict Ram Kalan son of Hari Singh is not recommended.

Sd/ 29.2.1992

Superintendent of Police Hisar.

District Magistrate, Hisar

Endst. No 114/PB Dated 25.3.1992.

The same is forwarded in original to the Additional Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Mani Majra, Chandigarh with the report that keeping in view the report of Superintendent of Police, Hisar the release on Furlough of convict No. 1853 Ram Kalan S/o Hari Singh is not recommended (Not recommended).

Sd/ District Magistrate, Hisar

Dt. 9.3.1992.

As is discernible form a reading of Annexure PI, it is nowhere written either in the Police Report or in the report of the District Magistrate, that the District Magistrate is satisfied that the release of the petitioner is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. It is not understood as to from where it has been incorporated in the order, dated May 1, 1992, passed by the Additional Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh, declining the request of the petitioner for his temporary release on furlough that "according to the report of the District Magistrate, Hisar, if convict Ram Kalan son of Hari Singh is released on Furlough there can be an apprehension of breach of public peace." It means even the mention of apprehension of breach of public peace in the aforesaid order is without any basis. This approach of the authority rejecting the request of the convictpetitioner seems to be highly arbitrary, unjust and fair.

For the aforesaid reasons, the prayer of the petitioner seems to be genuine and the order, dated May 1, 1992 declining the prayer for his release on furlough is liable to be set aside being not valid. I order accordingly.

The petition is, thus, allowed and the respondents are directed to release the petitioner temporarily on furlough for two weeks, subject to his furnishing adequate security/surety to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Hisar.