Sahi Ram vs State or Haryana and ors.

Harphul Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has stated that vide Annexure RI he requested the Jail Authorities concerned under section 3(1)(c) of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 for the grant of agricultural parole of six weeks enabling him to look after his agricultural land during the sowing season, but the Jail Authorities without intimating any reason stated that the Police had rejected parole of the petitioner. His application for parole was rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons.

It is further stated in his petition that the Sarpanch and other members of the Panchayat certified that there would be no disturbance in the village on his spending the parole days for cultivating his land. The Panchayat vide Annexure R2 with the petition had endorsed in the Panchayatnama that he had already passed the parole from November 8, 1988 to November 22, 1988 without any complaint from the Jail Authorities. His father died in 1972 and there was no capable member in the family to undertake multiplicities of agricultural work. The Panchayat strongly reccommended the grant of six weeks parole to the petitioner for cultivating the land for the bare existence of food from the agricultural produce for his family.

Reply has been filed by Shri Jawa Singh, Superintendent, Central Jail, Hisar, on behalf of himself and respondents 1 and 2.

The main ground for not granting parole to the petitioner has been stated in Para 2 of the Reply as under :

". The District Magistrate, Jind after making enquiry through the Police Department did not recommend the Parole Release Case of the petitioner due to an apprehension of breach of public peace vide No. 52 Peshi, dated 311991 (Copy of which is attached as Annexure R I). On the report of the District Magistrate, Jind, the Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh has rejected the Parole Release Case of the petitioner.."

It is admitted in the written statement that the petitioner has already availed of six weeks parole from November 8, 1988 to December 21, 1988 and had surrendered at Jail in time.

Mr. Trikha, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Gurcharan Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 328 : 1988(2) All India Criminal L.R. 310 and Harbhajan Singh v. The State of Punjab and another, 1988(2) All India Criminal L.R. 1311, to substantiate his plea for grant of agricultural parole to his client. He has argued that the petitioner should not be denied agricultural parole merely on the ground that his release case may cause an apprehension of breach of public peace.

No data or material has been put forth before this Court on the basis of which the conclusion of breach of public peace has been arrived at. The report of the District Magistrate, Jind, has also not been produced in Court. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the respondents has put only a lukewarm opposition to the grant of parole to the petitioner in view of the authorities cited above.

In view of the factual position as stated above, the petitioner detenu is granted six weeks parole. He is directed to be released on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind.

The petition is allowed in the above terms.