Risal Singh vs State of Haryana and another

G.S. Chahal, J.

Risal Singh, petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks a direction to the respondentauthorities for his release on 6 weeks agricultural parole.

The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 302, IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide his judgment dated 17.8.1988 and is at present confined to Distt Jail, Rohtak. On appeal the conviction was converted into under Section 334 IPC and his sentence was reduced by this Court to RI for 7 years.

The petitioner owns agricultural land and he applied for parole to perform agricultural pursuits on his land that was laying vacant. This prayer had been rejected and the petitioner challenges the same to be arbitrary and thus, seeks a direction.

In the return filed, it has been stated that the case of the petitioner for parole was initiated in February 1992, but after a thorough enquiry through the local Police, it been had rejected. The reason for rejection was described to be nonrecommendation by the District Magistrate. This report of the District Magistrate is based on the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police. The operative part of the observation of the District Magistrate for not recommending the parole may be drawn from Annexure R2, as follows :

"The investigation of the parole case of the convict has been conducted through the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak. It was found from the investigation report that there is opposite party of the convict in the village. It is danger to life on release on parole of the convict. Therefore, the release on parole has not been recommeded by him. On being agreed I also do not recommend he release on parole of convict Risal Singh s/o Sher Singh."

Sh. Bhalla, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the mere fact that the complainant and some of the witnesses have shown apprehension to their lives is no ground for refusing the Concession of parole. Such a concession can be refused only if there is apprehension to public order and security of the State. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel.

In Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1988(2) Recent CR 548 , AP Chowdhri, J. made an exhaustive study on this subject and held that parole can be refused on account of security of the State and not when there is law and order problem. He clarified that security of State is endangered by crimes of violence, intended to overthrow the Government, waging of war and rebellion against the Government etc. Minor breaches of public peace do not come under security of the State and to quote :

"The apprehension that the prisoner may indulge in violence especially directed towards the members of the opposite party or the witnesses on whose testimony he was sentenced to imprisonment does not broadly speaking justify refusal of the benefit of release envisaged under the Act. This conclusion is justified because the Act and the Rules framed thereunder contain a larger number of in built safeguards. To mention a few of such safeguards, the temporary release is subject to such conditions as may be imposed before the release. The release is for a limited period of 4 to 6 weeks under Section 3 and 5 weeks during the first year and 2 weeks during each successive year under Section 4. The temporary release under Section 4 is available only to prisoners, who have been sentence to long terms of imprisonment of not less than 5 years. A condition precedent under Section 4 is that the prisoner must have earned at least three annual good conduct remissions."

I endorse the view and I conclude that the concession should not be refused on the basis that the complainant and his witnesses have some apprehension if the petitioner comes out. I may also add that the provision for parole is a reformatory measure meant for enabling the convict to come out of jail for socialisation so that when he returns after completing the sentence, he proves himself a better citizen. The order of the authorities in rejecting the parole in the light of the above facts was arbitrary and is liable to be quashed. I order accordingly.

I hereby issue a direction to the respondents to release the petitioner on six weeks agricultural parole on his furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Rohtak. With this direction, the criminal miscellaneous stands disposed of.