Sukhjinder Singh vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J.

The petitioner Sukhjinder Singh is undergoing life sentence and is confined in District Jail, Sangrur. The case for parole of the petitioner for four weeks on the ground of house repairs was initiated under Section 3(1) (d) of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') by the respondent No. 2, the Superintendent, District Jail, Sangrur, to respondent No.1, the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh. The respondent No. 1 rejected the case of parole on the ground that the District Magistrate, Sangrur, after getting due verification from the Senior Superintendent of Police, had not recommended the case of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner was untrustworthy fellow and further that he can commit crime on release on parole and there is danger to peace.

The petitioner, apart from serving the life sentence vide judgment dated 28.1.1994, is facing trial under Section 5 of the T.A.D.A. Act and Section 25, Arms Act, which is pending in the Court of Designated Judge at Sangrur. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case under the T.A.D.A. Act is still pending and the petitioner is on bail in that case. It has also been contended that the respondentauthorities cannot in law reject the case of parole of the petitioner on the additional ground of the pendency of the case under the T.A.D.A. Act.

Regarding the ground of rejection of the case of parole, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that under the provisions of Section 3(1) (d) of the Act, the petitioner can be released on parole subject to such conditions as may be imposed if the authority is satisfied that it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause; and while doing so the State can decline the case of release on parole if the release of the prisoner is likely to endanger the peace of the State. The learned counsel submitted that this Court has held in a number of cases that the mere apprehension expressed by the district authorities that the release of the prisoner was likely to create law and order problem or a threat to the opposite party, is not a valid and legal ground and the same is not covered by the expression ''likely to endanger the security of the State Government or the maintenance of public order'' appearing in section 6 of the Act. The learned counsel referred to the following observations of a learned Single Judge of this Court made in Criminal Misc. No. 10646M of 1994 Teja Singh v. State of Punjab and another, decided on 15.9.1994:

"Under Section 6 of the Act, temporary release can be denied to a prisoner only in the event that his release would endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. The mere apprehension of some danger to the complainant party does not fall within either of the two expressions."

In view of the foregoing discussion, there are no valid grounds for opposing the release on parole of the petitioner and he deserves to be released on parole under Section 3(1) (d) of the Act. The petitioner is accordingly ordered to be released on parole for a period of four weeks subject to his filing necessary bonds to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Sangrur, that the petitioner while on parole shall not indulge in any subverse activity prejudicial to the State and maintenance of public order. The petitioner, after the expiry of period of parole, shall appear before the District Magistrate, Sangrur, for being sent to jail to serve out the remaining sentence.