Satbir vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

Satbir s/o Balbir Singh was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by Sessions Court on 19.4.1989. His appeal against conviction was dismissed on 7.1.1992. He was arrested on 17.3.1988. On 22.6.1989, he was released on bail. He remained in jail as an undertrial. He remained in jail from 19.4.1989 to 22.6.1989, in consequence of his appeal in this Court, on 3.6.1994 he was granted parole for house repair by this court. After the expiry of the period of parole, he surrendered in jail. He did not commit any breach of peace during the period he was on parole. Before 10.5.1993, he had completed 3 years in jail and had earned remissions because of good conduct in jail and also because he was neither a habitual offender nor a convict of decoity. He made a request to grant him agricultural parole/furlough to the Director General of Prisoners who happened to visit the jail. He advised the Superintendent, Jail, to initiate his case for the grant of parole/furlough to him. Panchayat has given a certificate (Annexure P2) that in case he is released on parole, there would be no apprehension of breach of peace at his hands. Other members of the family are undergoing imprisonment in District Jail, Rohtak and there is no one to look after agriculture. His wife Santosh is residing in the village with 8 years old daughter. There is none who can harvest the crop.

Satbir convictprisoner has come to this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the grant of agricultural parole to him.

His prayer for the grant of parole was resisted on the grounds that parole/furlough cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is only a concession admissible to prisonerconvicts. He was released for two weeks on parole for house repair earlier in July 1994. In pursuance of this Court''s JUDGMENT dated 3.6.1994, he enjoyed yet another parole for house repair from 9.3.1995 to 24.3.1995. He tried to procure his release on parole on the fake order of this Court and for that act, a case FIR No. 137 dated 23.3.1993 under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at P.S. Civil Lines, Rohtak. He has been granted only one annual good conduct remission under the rules. It was further admitted that he is neither habitual offender nor a convict in decoity. Furlough cannot be granted as he has not earned 3 annual good conduct remissions. A prisoner can avail of agricultural parole twice in a year up to a maximum period of 42 days. Other paroles can be availed only once a year. He has already been allowed parole for house repair in the same year, he cannot be allowed agriculture parole. There is a letter (Annexure R1) issued by the Haryana Government Memo No. 18885JJ68/6979 dated 19.3.1968 which prohibits the grant of more than one parole in a year except agricultural parole which can be allowed twice a year.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned advocate for the State of Haryana and have gone through the record. In this case, the State has nowhere urged that if he is allowed parole, there will be apprehension of breach of peace at his hands, but it has been submitted on behalf of the State that he (convictprisoner) had enjoyed one parole for house repair from 9.3.1995 to 24.3.1995. He cannot be allowed furlough as he has not earned 3 good conduct remissions. In the same year, he can be allowed parole only once. Agricultural parole can, however, be allowed twice a year.

This time, he has prayed for the grant of agricultural parole. Vide Annexure P2, the Panchayat has reported that there is none to look after the agricultural operations so far as the family of the petitioner is concerned. Petitioner''s father and Tau are all serving life sentence since 1988 in District Jail, Rohtak. In the village, only petitioner''s wife Santosh is living with 8 years daughter. She cannot possibly look after agricultural operations. There is no male member in the family who can look after agriculture and harvest the crop. His temporary release on parole would not give rise to any breach of peace. His temporary release on parole would enable him to look after agriculture. Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 permits the temporary release of the prisoner for ploughing, sowing for harvesting provided the report of the District Magistrate is not to this effect that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of the public order. There is, thus, restriction on the power of the State Government to release a prisonerconvict on parole namely; that if on the report of the District Magistrate, it is satisfied that the release of the convictprisoner would not endanger security of the State or public order.

The object of releasing a prisonerconvict on parole is to reunite him with his family so that he does not feel that he stands ostracised from his family and his family also do not feel that they stand ostracised from him. The object of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 is to provide soothing balm particularly to those prisonerconvicts who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term.

In the year 1995, he had enjoyed 3 weeks'' parole. In the same year, total period of parole cannot exceed 6 weeks.

So far as grant of parole is concerned, it is only a consideration, to be shown by the Government, to the convictprisoner on being satisfied that parole can be granted to him justifiably. Section 3 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release Act, 1988) specifies the grounds on the existence of which parole can be allowed to a prisonerconvict.

Section 4 deals with the grounds on which furlough can be granted to a prisonerconvict. Section 6 is in the nature of a proviso to the grant of parole/furlough to the prisonerconvict.

In this case, 3 male members of the family are in jail and it is stated that there is none who can look after agricultural operations in the family of the petitioner in the village. Petitioner has justifiable cause for the grant of parole so that he is able to look after agricultural operations.

In the result, this petition is accepted and the petitionerconvict is allowed 3 weeks'' parole to enable him to look after agriculture on his executing personal bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Rohtak. Superintendent District Jail, Rohtak is directed to release the petitionerprisoner to enable him to enjoy agricultural parole for 3 weeks. Period of parole will commence when the bonds duly attested by the District Magistrate reach the Jail. Petitioner will surrender before the Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak, after the expiry of the period of parole.